Technology

59607 readers

3431 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

311

Google Pulls the Plug: The End of Third-Party Cookies and What it Means | TWiT.TV (twit.tv)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by redfox@infosec.pub to c/technology@lemmy.world

133 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This episode of Security Now covered Google's plan to deprecate third party cookies and the reaction from advertising organizations and websites.

The articles and the opinions of the show hosts are that it may have negative or unintended consequences as rather than relying on Google's proposed ad selection scheme being run on the client side (hiding information from the advertiser), instead they are demanding first party information from the sites regarding their user's identification.

The article predicts that rather than privacy increasing, a majority of websites may demand user registration so they can collect personal details and force user consent to provide that data to advertisers.

What's your opinion of website advertising, privacy, and data collection?

Would you refuse to visit websites that force registration even if the account is free?
What's all the fuss about, you don't care?
Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?
Would this limit your visiting of websites to only a narrow few you are willing to trade personal details for?
Is this a bad thing for the internet experience as whole, or just another progression of technology?
Is this no different from using any other technology platform that's free (If it's free, you're the product)?
Should website owners just accept a lower revenue model and adapt their business, rather than seeking higher / unfair revenues from privacy invasive practices of the past?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 161 points 9 months ago (19 children)

Would you refuse to visit websites that force registration even if the account is free?

Yes, I already do. I don't visit Instagram because you need to login to view posts.

What's all the fuss about, you don't care?

I definitely care.

Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?

Ah, now this is an interesting question. I can certainly see an argument that ads are necessary to support "free" content, although personally in many cases I prefer to pay a subscription to support content rather than being subjected to ads.

Really though this is kind of a red herring because it's predisposing that violating your privacy and collecting personal information is a prerequisite to serving ads. It's required for individually targeted ads, yes, but they don't need to traget ads to the individual, they could target the ad by site or the contents of the page hosting the ad.

Would this limit your visiting of websites to only a narrow few you are willing to trade personal details for?

I would not visit any site that sold my details to an advertiser.

Is this a bad thing for the internet experience as whole, or just another progression of technology?

Yes, this is very bad.

Is this no different from using any other technology platform that's free (If it's free, you're the product)?

There's a reason I don't use most "social media" sites.

Should website owners just accept a lower revenue model and adapt their business, rather than seeking higher / unfair revenues from a privacy invasive practices of the past?

Yes, or find a different revenue model that doesn't invade people's privacy.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 81 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

Ah, now this is an interesting question. I can certainly see an argument that ads are necessary to support "free" content

I understand the need for ads, but having lived through popups, bonzi buddy, and "punch the monkey", advertisers blew any chance of me not using an ad-blocker.

[–] Eggyhead@kbin.social 24 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ads don’t bother me as much as their invasiveness. I block ads because…

if a business is dirty enough to resort to interference with popups to get attention, I’m not spending money there. Period.
I don’t want to support mass surveillance perpetrated by the industry.

Give me simple tech ads on tech sites, grocery ads on store fronts, travel ads on travel articles, etc.

[–] ard@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

i would be fine with a 5 second brand mention, like "this youtube video is paid for by SoapTM", quietly. And I'd probably think "thanks." But it's like they're trying to overtake the content. Like you can't enjoy your show because they're worried you're not thinking about their brand for the largest possible % of time.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (16 replies)