Post AVlbPBy9X879pyYcxE by seanm@infosec.exchange
(DIR) More posts by seanm@infosec.exchange
(DIR) Post #AVlX7PuWYqGy2y83Zw by lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org
2023-05-18T02:40:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
**** More on Google ad personalization / Privacy Sandbox (and Panic) ****More questions, more answers ... As I've noted before, I am not an "ad hater". I don't run ad blockers. Ads ultimately mostly pay the bills for many sites, and I'm not in the club that feels one deserves to get everything for free and not even see any ads.Google's Privacy Sandbox is an interesting technology to increase the value of ads while preserving key privacy aspects. I doubt, however, that it will satisfy the ad haters. Nothing will, except no ads at all. Everything for free is their ultimate goal. Impossible, of course.But frankly, having those key ad personalization settings default to ON, at least that's what they did for me, is almost certain to rub anyone already disposed to dislike ads to dislike them even more.Yeah, it even bothered me. I know what Google is likely thinking -- most people will just stay with the defaults. But with something like this, I would have been much happier to have been presented with a set of three questions requiring me to make an affirmative selection of ON or OFF for each before proceeding, rather than having ON already set as the clickthrough default, requiring going to settings to changethem.This is a crazy time for tech. One senses more than a bit of panic among even the largest Big Tech firms, and given the toxic political landscape I can't blame them for that. But we're now at a stage where policy decisions that might seem attractive in the short run could easily trigger consumer and political blowback in this environment, and ultimately be a disaster for these firms, their users, and society at large. -L
(DIR) Post #AVlZGXiB7umOktpkHI by canyonr@twit.social
2023-05-18T03:04:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lauren I think the thing they have learned is that the majority of customer blows back is short lived and once the newness wears off the default will still persist.
(DIR) Post #AVlZTMJsnCijBla4HY by seanm@infosec.exchange
2023-05-18T03:05:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lauren it's interesting that pervasive surveillance capitalism is now considered the default for advertising. This is not the only way to advertise. You should be well aware that advertising on the Internet has not always required tracking and surveillance. Two decades ago, websites and advertisers were able to provide static advertising content that didn't need to perform surveillance. Television and radio still use static ads for the most part. Why is that form of advertising never considered? What was broken about that model? I have no problem with sites that run ads on their websites. Advertising is not the problem. It is the surveillance that has been dressed up as advertising that is the problem.So, you're correct that most of us "ad haters" won't be happy with Google's new surveillance apparatus. It's just more surveillance in search of a problem.From a strictly technical standpoint, modern advertising is repeatedly shown to degrade the browsing experience and has been frequently abused to push malware.#advertising #ads #surveillance #malware #google
(DIR) Post #AVlZfuYfJwoqquTrKy by lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org
2023-05-18T03:08:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@canyonr That is unlikely to be the case in the new political environment that is so hateful of Big Tech -- politicians in both parties have learned how to capitalize on this for their own political ends.
(DIR) Post #AVlZpv2CP8pvE34CRs by lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org
2023-05-18T03:10:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@seanm Actually most TV is shifting toward streaming, and most of that is using targeted ads, not static. Ad targeting became important because the value of static ads dropped precipitously as consumers objected to seeing ads for stuff that didn't interest them. Then they complained about targeted ads too. Like I said, most people just want everything for free.
(DIR) Post #AVlbPBy9X879pyYcxE by seanm@infosec.exchange
2023-05-18T03:28:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lauren I can't disagree that people want free stuff. 😅I do see the television industry creating surveillance opportunities with streaming and smart devices.
(DIR) Post #AVlldqN96y02k0sBma by lauren@mastodon.laurenweinstein.org
2023-05-18T05:22:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@seanm @lori If you don't read them you're not really getting anything from them either, right? That is, billboards are just ads, they're not, for example, search engines providing an interactive service.
(DIR) Post #AVnetSvBl4n5HPDZuS by seanm@infosec.exchange
2023-05-19T03:16:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lauren @lori that's true. However, I disagree that the only or best response to funding a service is pervasive surveillance. As discussed throughout this thread, there are ways to target ads (or not target at all) without the need for massive surveillance. A service can also consider charging for premium features or capabilities.Ultimately, though, if you post something publicly I generally feel that you don't get to dictate how someone consumes that content and label the consumer a thief when the consumer deviates.