It's getting to the point were I am really questioning the characters of people that still work at Google.
I mean some of the people implementing and designing this shit must be right here. Is it really just the money?
I mean some of the people implementing and designing this shit must be right here. Is it really just the money?
Providing an open API for advertisers that doesn't require endless digital stalking is the only way Google will ever be able to enforce stricter anti tracking features. Their announcement that they were working on ending third party cookie tracking was met with threats of lawsuits and antitrust.
A locally classified list of topics that can be spoofed by the user agent is an excellent privacy measure. Nobody wants ads, but I'd rather have Chrome enable site isolation than the current status quo.
Honestly, I don't see the problem here. Your browsing history isn't submitted to Google according to the spec. There are aboit 8 bits of entropy for fingerprinting, but who cares when WebGPU and the canvas APIs provide ten times that already.
The privacy invasion argument seems to be "but it's based on my browsing history" which is exactly how all major advertisers have been doing it for the last ten years.
If this gets cancelled, Google isn't going to implement any anti tracking features in Chrome. They legally can't because of advertisers as scummy as them. They can choose between dropping their main source of income (lol), leaving Microsoft in charge of Chromium and killing Chrome (lol), do nothing against the current atate of the web amd tracking, or work with advertisers in a way that doesn't get them sued to hell over antitrust.
2. The suggestion that Google has only a limited choice between maintaining its main source of income or facing antitrust lawsuits is an oversimplification. Google, as one of the most influential tech companies, has the power and resources to innovate and find alternative models that respect user privacy while also providing value to their advertisers.
3. The idea that an API to track browsing history is a "privacy measure" because it can be "spoofed" by the user is flawed because it assumes all users have the technical knowledge and time to do so. This should not be a user's responsibility; privacy should be a default setting, not an option for the tech-savvy.
4. Lastly, just because the browsing history isn't directly submitted to Google does not mean it cannot be misused. Even if Google uses this data responsibly, the potential for abuse still exists with third parties
2. That's what they're doing. That's what this is.
3. It's not a feature, it's an advantage for browsers like Firefox and Brave that happen to be made possible. Google sure won't advertise with it.
4. What data? Ad companies know through tracking that you've visit cars.com three times during lunch every work day except on your day off on Friday, who cares if they now get an API that says "I like cars".
2. Trading privacy for utility. A truly innovative solution would respect privacy from the ground up, not pretending to retrofit privacy into an advertising model.
3. The nuance here is about "default" privacy. Even if the feature provides some privacy, it shouldn't require user intervention or tech prowess. Privacy should be a given, not a bonus.
4. The concern isn't just about "liking cars" but the ability to infer personal and sensitive information from gathered data. This may lead to the misuse of data by third parties, reinforcing the need for stringent privacy safeguards.
Could even have a "suggest automatically" button.
I hope so. I can at least understand that. People have principles but they also have prices.
It would be a completely different matter if they actually believed what they're doing is moral though.
I seriously doubt the people in this thread will agree with any of that, but I thought I’d answer the question. Of course, the money helps too - Google just recently laid off thousands of workers in an attempt to scare the rest into compliance
That would require levels of cognitive dissonance rarely seen outside fraudulent politicians. But that's phrasing it sarcastically, something best avoided in conversations. Bluntly put: indeed, I don't believe you. You cannot work for Google/Alphabet, where 80% of revenue ($183 billion in 2020!) comes from ads, and believe you're doing privacy a favor.
All of this is kinda silly, in the end: display ads are negligible when compared to their INSANE search ads revenue, and something tells me they’re not long for this world
Some perspective please.
They all promote to manager position when there's opportunity, because it pays more.