[suddenexample]

Company: Supports measures that lead to additional privacy because they realize how important it is to their users

HN: Don't be tricked, Google is evil.

Like I understand WHY there's a hate boner for Google. I just don't understand why people think it's bad for them to acknowledge the preferences of their users and make decisions accordingly.

[ocdtrekkie]

Because the preferences of their users would be to stop tracking their users. You don't need a replacement, you just need to get rid of it.

There's a significant amount of gaslighting to claiming that you value user privacy whilst developing new ways to track users.

[buttersbrian]

Are you sure? I think there's lots of consumers that find the tradeoff okay - in fact I hear people state as much all the time. Maybe they don't know the extent of the tracking, or they don't care, but the opinion exists and it's not negligible.

If companies could anonymously track users, and still maintain the marketing backbone of the internet I think most people would be fine with it -- in fact, prefer it.

[danShumway]

Would they prefer it enough to opt into that tracking and targeting?

If users had to go to a setting to turn on targeted ads, what percentage of them do you think would do it? I suspect it would be pretty low. I wonder if most people would even notice that the setting had been turned off?

We use the opt out model all the time to justify why users don't actually care about tracking -- we say that they'd opt out if they did care. But I feel like we all mostly know that an opt in system would also not see much use (that's the reason why ad networks are so opposed to them), and I don't know why we don't consider that to be evidence that consumers probably don't value targeted ads very much at all.

[buttersbrian]

> Would they prefer it enough to opt into that tracking and targeting?

I believe a a sizable portion would. They like the targeted offers and ads. Maybe because they enjoy the feel of something being catered to them, maybe because they are addicted to shopping/consumerists. IDK.

> If users had to go to a setting to turn on targeted ads, what percentage of them do you think would do it? I suspect it would be pretty low. I wonder if most people would even notice that the setting had been turned off?

I think this is a really good question. The power of opt-in vs. opt-out, as you noted.

However, I don't know if we can conclude whether they value it or not solely from their willingness to opt-in. We really have to account for how the ability to opt-in is exposed. If we showed it on every size (akin to the cookie accept craze of today), we'd see a lot of people opt-in. If it were hidden in a chrome settings, far less just because that's mentally off limits for many, and easily forgettable.

I totally agree with you on somewhat sinister motivation of opt-out over opt-out patterns.

[ogre_codes]

> Are you sure?

If users are given the option in clear terms, most users will turn off tracking. Facebook knows this, it's why they are so pissed off at Apple and have taken such an aggressive public stance against Apple. Google knows it, it's why they haven't published an update to any of the iPhone apps since Apple started requiring their apps report what end user data they collect.

Google and Facebook are sure... not sure anyone else is more qualified on this.

> If companies could anonymously track users, and still maintain the marketing backbone of the internet I think most people would be fine with it -- in fact, prefer it.

If this were true, why doesn't Google, Facebook, and others give us straight-forward ways to opt out? If people would prefer it, why exactly is Facebook trying so damned hard to prevent Apple from giving people a simple opt out?

[buttersbrian]

> If this were true, why doesn't Google, Facebook, and others give us straight-forward ways to opt out?

I don't think anyone expected them to just flip the switch and do that without a reasonable (maybe to just them?) alternative I can say, the idea of using 'cohorts' as discussed by this FLOC approach, from what I can tell, is positive progress. Is it far enough? Perhaps not.

> why exactly is Facebook trying so damned hard to prevent Apple from giving people a simple opt out?

Good question. I am not aware of that issue.

I also Question Apple as they take payment from Google to the tune of billions of dollars for search, pushing 'beacons' etc, while promoting themselves a bastion of privacy and security. None of it is as simple as it seems.

[ogre_codes]

> I don't think anyone expected them to just flip the switch and do that without a reasonable (maybe to just them?)

No more than anyone expects a heroin addict to stop cold turkey. The problem is Google isn't stopping or giving people the option to opt out, they are just changing tactics slightly.

This also doesn't really talk about how this data gets integrated into the rest of the profile Google has built and will continue to build on users (without their permission) based on their search history, mapping, email, etc.

Google isn't

[buttersbrian]

> "Google isn't"

Did you accidently clip the rest of your message?

[josefx]

> I think there's lots of consumers that find the tradeoff okay

How often do consumers even get asked? My webmail provider seems to have no issues providing both paid and ad supported. Other services just pulled the paid plan from under my feet. Whats App with its new terms and conditions once had a small yearly fee, Facebook dropped it. User choice? certainly not mine.

> If companies could anonymously track users

That is like trying to identify a suspect using a smiley face. If they track you it isn't anonymous.

> and still maintain the marketing backbone of the internet I think most people would be fine with it

Why do we need targeted ads? Websites usually have topics they are focused on, is it wrong to show car ads on a page for car enthusiasts? On a news story showing a newly released car?

[buttersbrian]

> How often do consumers even get asked?

Purely anecdotal that I am drawing from -- I've had this discussion with quite a few non-tech folks over the last few years privacy/tracking has hit the zeitgeist.

Many dismissively state something like, "I know. Don't care. Means stuffs free right?", or "I'm not doing anything wrong, I don't care".

> That is like trying to identify a suspect using a smiley face. If they track you it isn't anonymous

By that I mean regulations around what they track, identifiable data, not being able to explicitly say User2021 === Josefx on the system. I think this is why Google is going with the 'cohorts' in their FloC approach.

> Why do we need targeted ads?

Good question. "Need", probably not. But if I am on facebook, and ads are going to happen, do I want highest bidder ads like "Find Hot Milks in your Area Now" interspersed between my feed's family baby photos or an add for "World's best Uncle" T-Shirts? There's a happy medium somewhere.

[PoignardAzur]

Don't you need at least some tracking to avoid fraudulent clicks?

I'm as pro-privacy as they come, but until someone comes with the incentive or dedication to build an alternate payment ecosystem out of nowhere, ads are what the web is built on.

[hhjj]

I may begin to trust Google when they provide a single switch to disable ALL tracking on android phone (or better disable all of them by default). That's what my preference is and it isn't respected.

[ogre_codes]

> I just don't understand why people think it's bad for them to acknowledge the preferences of their users and make decisions accordingly.

Aside from that. Why on earth should we trust Google will limit their collection to this one method? They've lied over and over about what they collect. Been caught multiple times breaking laws to collect information only to say "Oops, it was a rough engineer". They've been caught bypassing the no-tracking flag in browsers. They've been caught abusing location data after users disabled it.

As the saying goes: Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me 750 times, why in the fuck am I still using Google?