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

Submitted ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨redfox@infosec.pub⁩ to ⁨technology@lemmy.world⁩

https://twit.tv/posts/tech/google-pulls-plug-end-third-party-cookies-and-what-it-means

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

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

orclev@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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.

source
- AbidanYre@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  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.
  
  source
  - Eggyhead@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - TimeSquirrel@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    CONGRATULATIONS! YOU'VE WON A FREE APPLE IPOD
    
    source
- Maven@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  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.
  
  On the other hand, not everyone can afford a subscription, so offering a both ad-supported and paid-for options is ideal, imo. Well, at least as ideal as it gets in a “grind your hustle or you’ll starve” economy.
  
  source
  - orclev@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Yes, having a free ad supported option and a paid ad-free option is best, although I would say only if the ad supported option isn’t using individually targeted ads. You should be able to see the content without ads without needing to login or provide personal data.
    
    source
  - Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Plus all of those subscription transactions have individual costs. 3% just to the credit card companies alone. We either need to actually make low-cost microtransactions an actual thing - no Bitcoin is not that thing - or we need to publicly subsidize artists for the sake of art.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Yes, or find a different revenue model that doesn’t invade people’s privacy
  
  Agreed. The business model is unsustainable, and toxic. As much as I hate paywalls, it’s better than the alternative.
  
  Nobody could seriously believe that the viability of journalism should be dependent on the public’s malleability and willingness to buy McDonalds burgers. And yet that’s the status quo, more or less.
  
  source
- Osa-Eris-Xero512@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  This is why I wish those micropayment systems took off. I would be happy to pay 20 bucks a month for 'ad free' browsing if most of it actually supported the creators of the content i'm accessing.
  
  10x their cpm is still fractions of a cent for me as a user on a per page view basis, there's space for winning here if one of the big ~~tech~~ ad companies gets behind it and pushes.
  
  source
  - snooggums@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Micropayments would scale at a ridiculous rate like microtransactions in games have, so your $20 example would be at least $200 in reality by now.
    
    source
  - Spotlight7573@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Chromium at least is still looking into it:
    
    groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/…/j7x8sTyzAAAJ
    
    based on this spec:
    
    webmonetization.org/specification/
    
    source
- redfox@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I would also like to avoid ads, and pay streaming services rather than cable or anything with ads. Oddly, this hasn’t been the case for any online news sites. The Indy Star is begging and pay walling for subscribers and for some reason, I don’t want to. But I don’t want ads. I admit it’s unreasonable to have neither. They need to pay people like anyone else.
  
  source
  - orclev@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I think it boils down to the difference in how we consume these things. You typically go directly to a streaming service with the intent to browse and consume its content, but few people directly consume news sites. More often you’ll either end up on a particular site from a web search or from a link from an existing content aggregator like facebook, reddit, or lemmy. Since you don’t seek out a particular news platform for regular consumption you feel less inclined to pay an ongoing subscription.
    
    That does raise an interesting idea to me though. What if instead of a normal month to month subscription a news service offered a pre-paid per article account. So, say 25 cents an article say and you can purchase 40 articles for $10, then each article you view deducts from your account. When you get low on remaining articles it can prompt you to top up your account or you can have it auto-renew. Personally I think I’d be far more inclined to something like that because the cost would scale based on how much I actually used the service rather than being an ongoing monthly cost for something I use very sporadically.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Zozano@lemy.lol ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  *presupposing
  
  (Predisposed means you’re more susceptible to something, normally used in medical contexts)
  
  source
- ard@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  i can’t comprehend how both the advertiser and the platform agree that ruining the content is even good for either the advertiser or the platform.
  
  source
- nevernevermore@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I use imginn, nitter and redlib to view Instagram, x and reddit info, respectively. I refuse to engage with any of them using a login or having to turn off my VPN.
  
  source
AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Constantly being brainwashed to consume is one of the great evils of our time. Consumerism is bad for mental health and the environment. But advertising also creates many biases in content creation.

When was the last time you heard anything about bad effects of advertising? Not just superficial “stupid ad” but as a massive corrosive force on society? That is how much freedom of speech we have.

source
- redfox@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Yeah, large portions of economies are being driven by consumption. I feel like so much stuff is just landfill fodder.
  
  source
  - treefrog@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Here’s an example.
    
    I was advertised camel smokes as a kid.
    
    Everytime I relapse it’s on camels. Camels are shitty and cheap.
    
    I relapse and then switch to a brand that’s not garbage. Then figure out again how to beat the addiction.
    
    It’s a substance use disorder directly caused by advertising. And cancer causing (so my physical environment).
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - hcbxzz@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Advertising is the closest thing we have to mind control. The entire goal is to use money to change your behavior. They’re inherently manipulative by definition. There’s no way to spin that as a positive effect
    
    source
  - AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Sorry I don’t have any great sources on this. It’s rather speculation because how could you research this scientifically? Even if you could, an experiment like that would actually be unethical! And who would fund this, there is no way to talk in mainstream about advertising without running against massive financial interests. There are some search results but most of those articles look like mental garbage.
    
    My guess is that because we’re constantly being told what to consume our minds work quite differently from what they would without advertising.
    
    Our minds constantly have to resist intrusive advertising and psychological manipulation which means we constantly have to switch between and adversarial mindset and whatever content we were watching / reading. Or we become obedient and just “let the advertising wash through us”. And advertising constantly has to find new ways to activate our emotions.
    
    Just as massive is the effect on content produced, there is a “natural selection” that any content that helps sell advertisement is more successful on the market. It’s not just that you can’t piss off your advertiser but that generally you want the consumer to be in a certain mood - or that content producers who do this naturally are more successful and grow.
    
    Then there are privacy concerns which reduce humans to machines and creates a powerful system that can and is abused for political control (public relations).
    
    How can any of that not have massive societal impacts, since it’s being done on a massive scale and is near ubiquitous? How can anyone assume these effects are not incredibly bad?
    
    You could have a country banning advertising that has a kind of “content tax” that is funded publicly and administered independent from the government through separate elections. And that has strict mandates and distributes the money to news papers, websites, movies and video creators dependent on views - similar to music rights agencies. But none of this is even talked about. We’ve completely lost the ability to even think seriously about how to improve our society.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- iquanyin@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  um, i just now hear it mentioned. by you…
  
  source
  - AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Congratulations! You’re among the first 1000 minds I liberated! Please sign up here for more updates and exciting discounts!
    
    source
- rottingleaf@lemmy.zip ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  The great evil is that we keep going to places where we are shown ads, despite having a choice in theory. It’s demoralizing.
  
  source
  - AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I’m living mostly ad-free due to adblockers everywhere (except android) but most people don’t know, can’t do it or are brainwashed to think it’s amoral to block ads. If more people would catch on adblocking would be made illegal. And either way my personal choice doesn’t change what content is produced and how society is influenced. Personal responsibility doesn’t solve this just as it doesn’t climate change. Because advertising clearly does work.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- JustUseMint@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Image
  
  Image
  
  Image
  
  source
yamanii@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

So, internet users may soon need to create accounts on sites they currently access for free. As Laporte worries, “We thought those cookie permission popups were bad, but things may be getting much worse” regarding being forced to hand over personal information just to browse sites.

Good way to kill your site, this is the one thing everyone hates, from the enthusiast to the casual user, making an useless account for 1 service that you barely use.

source
- mr_satan@monyet.cc ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Slap Google SSO on that and you’re good. Honestly that’s worse than regular registration.
  
  source
  - Buddahriffic@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Yeah, if I see a “register an account on this random website” I roll my eyes or close it/back out. If I see “sign in via Google/fb” I recoil with a “fuck no”.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - kogasa@programming.dev ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Decentralized SSO on the other hand has the potential to be both convenient and privacy respecting.
    
    source
- kayazere@feddit.nl ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  On mobile it is pretty common to force the user to create an account before being able to use the app, so people may already be trained on it.
  
  source
  - Andrenikous@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Probably what google is banking on. The world relies so heavily on the internet that if every site required sign in there is very little choice people have besides just not using the internet.
    
    source
- T156@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Especially considering all the data breaches that you hear about.
  
  source
  - mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Hi, I work in IT, for every big profile data breach you hear about, there are 4 that never make the news.
    
    source
- labsin@sh.itjust.works ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  If they need permission for third party cookies and those are now no longer possible, the popups can go already.
  
  And if a site doesn’t want to serve people that accept date hoarding, an account with terms and conditions is the only logical way to go.
  
  Belgium forced facebook to not track users without an account and they reacted by doing this exact thing (requiring an account to even read pages). It made it a lot easier for me to not having to deal with Facebook at all. If some store or organization only had the info on Facebook, I’ll just tell them I can’t access it 🤷‍♂️
  
  source
- mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  It’s already fucking bad enough when they popup a newsletter sign up halfway through the article.
  
  I’d pay fifty bucks every time to have the person who made that design decision slapped in the face with a haddock.
  
  source
abhibeckert@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

Lots of sites require a free account these days. I don’t visit those sites.

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

I care.

Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?

I like advertising - how else are you supposed to find out what products/services are available? It’s data collection I dislike, nothing wrong with ads as long as they’re a reasonably short interuption.

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

A website would need to offer some really valuable service for me to “trade personal details”. Even sites where I have an account (e.g. YouTube) I generally don’t log into that account.

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

I think anything that gives users control over wether or not they’re tracked is a good thing - and this does that. If websites want my personal details to access them… that’s fine with me. I just won’t use those sites. Other people will make a different decision. It’s how it should be.

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

I reject that premise. Lemmy is free. I don’t feel like “the product” when I use lemmy.

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?

It’s their business, choose whatever revenue model they want. Just be honest and open about it.

source
- Nudding@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  I like advertising
  
  🤮
  
  source
  - SuckMyWang@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Now don’t be rude, what lever that person likes can’t be that b…😧…🤢…🤮🤮🤮
    
    Disgusting.
    
    source
- phillaholic@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  You had to sign up for a free account to post this comment don’t you?
  
  source
  - abhibeckert@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Big difference between posting a comment and just viewing a website.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Not with my real name, age, gender, address, phone number or even email.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    You had to jump over the point to post this one
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Not me. I maintain my own lemmy server.
    
    source
- redfox@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Other people will make a different decision. It’s how it should be
  
  This is an aspect of the predicted changes I can at least appreciate. Choice/consent. There should already have been obtained and informed consent. But instead, they just did it behind people’s backs. I say that because I don’t think most normal/non-tech people really know or care much about cookies and all the ways this stuff actually works.
  
  If Lemmy has a few ads on every page
  
  Ahhh! No please :) …but I understand. Unless these people (hosts) are getting those services paid for by something else, they might need to cover the costs of this like anything else. I really enjoy Lemmy because, at least right now, I feel like it’s in the true spirit of the internet and not a business. It can be for community and discussion like you said. Only reason I’m here. I like asking people why they feel a certain way about things and hopefully walk away with some understanding.
  
  source
grue@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I vehemently oppose Google having hegemony over web standards, but I’ll still happily enjoy the delicious schadenfreude of propagandists --excuse me, “advertisers” – getting screwed by that hegemony.

source
- redfox@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  Google having hegemony over web standards
  
  You’re not wrong here. I think chrome browser is basically the Defacto browser, and it obviously allows google to do whatever it wants. Not great. The Mozilla / Brave options are barely that. I struggle to even all them competitors at this point.
  
  I definitely appreciate some of the EU’s recent privacy/monogoly focused legislation. Also, thanks EU for forcing a common sense charging cord standard and killing off the stupid lightning plug. IMO, if apple would have not been so greedy, they could have unlicensed it and maybe everyone would have used that. EAD apple :)
  
  source
  - nintendiator@feddit.cl ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    The Mozilla / Brave options are barely that.
    
    You mean “The Mozilla option”. Brave is just Yet Another Chrome Reskin.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
SpaghettiYeti@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I dabble in marketing for my company. Let me just say advertisers don’t need a damn cookie to know who you are to serve you ads. Even across multiple devices. There are so many methods… literally over a dozen when cross referenced tells companies exactly who you are, even on vpn, even incognito.

source
- derpgon@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  If you know who I am and what I like, gimme some damn relevant ads. No, me clicking the “Not interested” button doesn’t mean the next ad is the same damn thing. Worst are those when I search for something for several weeks, and when I finally find it and buy it a week later, I get peppered by the VERY THING for another week.
  
  No offense, of course. The ad industry is just insanity for me.
  
  For those “Just use an ad blocker” - I do, I just occasionally unblock sites to show support.
  
  source
  - SpaghettiYeti@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Some advertisers know their market and pinpoint, others just drag net to see what sticks. You’re getting the equivalent of cold calling for ads. If you show interest in something even once, you’re a target.
    
    source
- abhibeckert@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Google regularly thinks I’m a robot and the ads are not even remotely relevant. Sorry but there’s no way their tracking is working.
  
  Which is why I hate it so much - why base your marketing on tracking data when the data is often completely wrong?
  
  source
  - SpaghettiYeti@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Google is not the ads industry. Google is a small part of it. I know ad sellers that partner with Google and 60 other data brokers to know when you’re taking a shit.
    
    source
- rottingleaf@lemmy.zip ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Which is why cookies, server-dependent adaptive design and many other things in the Web were big mistakes.
  
  Gemini. Closing FF now.
  
  source
  - SpaghettiYeti@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Cookies don’t even matter for advertising anymore. They don’t need them. You leave breadcrumbs everywhere. Literally where you are, your wifi connection, browser used, browser build, device used, screen size, Google account logged into a browser, just to name a few. They string all this stuff together over days, weeks, years… you’ll slip up at some point no matter how diligent you are with something big, like that Google account login, a share from social media… there’s so much more lol
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- iquanyin@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  then why do they still use cookie? i’m genuinely curious.
  
  source
  - SpaghettiYeti@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    It’s easy and it started with that.
    
    source
Pxtl@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The secret trick here: nobody will make a new username and password - nor should they. They’ll only log in if they have a convenient login with Google/FB/MS button. Which gives Google premium position in tracking.

source
- abhibeckert@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Nothing convenient about those for me. The extensions that block tracking cause all of those services to direct me to “are you a robot” and “something looks strange about your login” auth bounces which are getting increasingly difficult to get through.
  
  source
- JustUseMint@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Awas OAuth a mistake? Maybe. I agree with your sentiment.
  
  source
ReallyKinda@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I already click right back out of websites that don’t make it easy to reject cookies or ask for an email. I certainly won’t be registering anywhere and will find other ways to get the information I need. At this point I am immediately turned off by anything that relies heavily on ad-revenue to exist anyway.

source
- redfox@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  What model is there? It’s pretty much subscriptions, ads, or sales right?
  
  Also, I’m the same way. As stated in previous reply.
  
  source
  - ReallyKinda@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    That sounds about right to me, maybe throw in government supported and nonprofits
    
    source
- grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Do you have paid subscriptions to web sites you like?
  
  source
  - ReallyKinda@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I do—I support a handful of creators (including some web content creators) directly via patreon, and donate to the important guys like wiki and craigslist. I don’t support any news organizations and am not sure how they’ll pivot.
    
    source
  - BearOfaTime@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    99% of sites I visit once
    
    source
danielfgom@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
This is great news! But I’m sure Google is probably using it as a way to get all the cookies for themselves and then sell that data to these companies.

The companies will still get their data but they’ll have to buy it from Google only as Google will probably be considered a 1st party cookie vendor.

If any site wants me to sign up to use it, I’ll just not use it. No big deal.

source
femboy_bird@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

posted February 13 2024

“Google recently announced that its dominant Chrome browser will phase out support for third-party cookies by the end of 2023”

“AI Written Human Edited”

We can tell

source
Rottcodd@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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

I already generally do.

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

I honestly don't much care, but that's because western civilization is circling the drain, warped and undermined at every turn by wealthy and powerful psychopaths, and it's just not worth it to care, since there's absolutely nothing I can do to stop them

Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?

Some sort of revenue stream is potentially necessary, but that's the extent of it. Advertising is just one revenue stream, and even if we limit the choices to that, there are still many different ways it could be implemented.

The specific forms of advertising to which we're subjected on the internet are very much not necessary. And they don't exist as they do because the costs of serving content require that much revenue - they exist as they do to pay for corporate bloat - ludicrously expensive real estate and facilities and grotesquely inflated salaries for mostly useless executive shitheads.

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

Again, that's what I already do, so it would just add more sites to those I won't visit.

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

At this point, the two are almost always one and the same. Internet technology is primarily harnessed to the goal of maximizing income for the well-positioned few, and all other considerations are secondary.

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

This is cynically amusing on Lemmy.

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?

Of course they should, but they won't, because they're psychopaths. They'll never give up any of their grotesque and destructive privilege, even if that means that they ultimately destroy the host on which they're parasites.

source
OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I don’t quite understand the leap from “No third party cookies” to “You need to create an account”.

If you’re visiting a site and they drop a cookie, that’s a first party cookie. You don’t need to log in for that to happen, and they can track you all the same. Taking identifiers from a first party cookie and passing them to advertisers will still be a thing, it’ll just require closer coordination between the site and the advertiser than if the advertiser dropped their own cookie.

Now yes, that first party cookie won’t follow you around to other websites and track your behavior there, but creating an account wouldn’t enable this anyway. Besides, Google’s Privacy Sandbox product suite is intended to fill this role in a less granular way (associating k-anonymized ids with advertising topics across websites).

source
- redfox@infosec.pub ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  If you use your email address, they can follow you everywhere. Unless you create tons of throw away emails.
  
  source
  - OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Despite what the length of their privacy policies might suggest, first party sites are a lot stingier with their user data now than they’ve been in the past. The value of knowing who someone is and what they want is derived when you convince them to pull out a credit card, at which point you need to collect their data anyway.
    
    Thus, I think we’ll see two tiers of data collection: Deep first-party info shared between retailers and data brokers to target advertising on their first party site, and less granular banner advertising based on privacy sandbox, taking the place of drive-by cookie drops. If privacy sandbox is as good for random blogs as industry is expecting (ie, not as perfect as third party cookies, but less impactful than Apple’s ITP was), I don’t think we will see a wave of email signups.
    
    source
kby@feddit.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I am not sure if advertising is a necessary evil. I guess I do not like being sold something constantly, and when I am in the market for anything, I will expose myself to advertising willingly, but it is, in way, a matter of consent. I can imagine that there is also people who like being sold things unsolicited, you know, they might say that they like discovering new products through advertisements.

source
- redfox@infosec.pub ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  people who like being sold things unsolicited…discovering new products…
  
  That is a good point, I can definitely understand.
  
  I do not like being sold something constantly
  
  I must agree.
  
  A short version rant about advertising: In my opinion, it causes either mental exhaustion or prevents people from reflecting. It’s a constant and invasive distraction, robbing people of peace.
  
  Why? Thinking of all the ways you can’t go ten minutes without seeing ads, unless you’re intentional. They started putting screens in gas pumps! Billboards on the roads, some that are giant LED screens (which I thought should be illegal), ads all over buildings, buses, in the subway, on the bench.
  
  Back to websites: I personally think in their current form, they’re so distracting, they’re unreadable. I refuse to visit websites that require registration, and also leave if I can’t get the simple/reader mode/ on edge/chrome. At least that way, its forced darkmode, and eliminates all the ads, social media links, everything but words. I can deal with some of the pictures not being shown. I wish I could find a browser that only displays websites in that stripped down mode.
  
  source
JustUseMint@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I already have been for some time.

I care immensely

Maybe, but I’ll keep fighting it tooth and nail with ad blocking and other privacy Security tools. I’ve been much much more receptive to sponsorships from YouTubers I enjoy than traditional ads. I’ll intentionally try stuff just to support the YTber.

Yes, I already do.

Primarily, yes it is to be. This is next in line for restrictions upon the internet, it goes in hand with that garbage website and browser attestation shit from Google and chrome. I don’t like any of this direction with ads, it’s gotten worse in everyday life too.

I can’t draw a comparison in my head.

I will be loyal to companies that do actually respect my privacy, mullvad being one of them. I recommend them everywhere, and there are others that deserve the same recognition, like Mozilla and many others. I will do my best to not support businesses that do not respect privacy.
source
doesnt_use_lemmy@lemmings.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
This is great news! I hope this ends the era of subversive psychological targeting that’s given rise to so much of the division in our culture.

source
francisfordpoopola@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Someone else that listens to SN!

source