[juloo]

Why do they still think we want tracking cookies ? The ad industry should prepare for a future with no tracking instead of trying to survive with ever shadier tricks, IMO.

This won't work:

- browsers other than Chrome will say "no tracking" by default, tracking companies won't like that

- websites will ignore this, this will be known and people will be upset even more

- more javascript when we want less

[enriquto]

> more javascript when we want less

notice that if you disable javascript by default most cookie banners disappear and everything becomes better. Then you can enable it per-site if you need something in particular.

[MarcellusDrum]

I tried that for a month, but most sites I encountered on search engines will just break or even refuse to render unless I enable JS. At first, I tried to leave the site and find an alternative, but after a while I found myself enabling JS on every site I visit that requires it, which negates the whole point.

[zeepzeep]

You should check out uMatrix to get even more fine grained control over sites.

I usually allow images on every page, that's it. Some need CSS, some need iframes, and a small subset of websites I visit are actual webapps that need javascript.

[dmm]

I love uMatrix but development on it has stopped so it won't receive bug fixes and it will probably stop working someday. I don't think I would recommend new users start using it.

https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24532973

[zeepzeep]

Yes true, but it's still working mostly and I don't have a real alternative.

I want to switch to uBlock's Advanced mode which seems to do similar things, but I haven't yet.

[chopin]

The UI is much less clear on what is blocked or not compared to uMatrix. I definitely prefer the latter.

[titzer]

The ad industry has measured, and tracking means more revenue and more clicks. How much more? 2x. Not more. But 2x is 5 years of 15% "normal growth".

They will absolutely not accept going back in time just 5 years in terms of revenue. They will fight to the death over every dollar.

[presentation]

They don't think we want tracking cookies - it just doesn't matter what you want with all the incentives to track.

[mikro2nd]

They do think that we want personalised ads, though, and tracking cookies are just the tech-at-hand that is the least-cost way to do that.

[godshatter]

Do we want personalized ads, though? I don't, but I suspect I'm in a small minority. If I want to purchase something, I'll go do some research. I specifically don't want ads that are designed to try to get me to purchase something I don't need based on some manipulative psychological model based on my browsing behavior.

A quick search makes it apparent to me that most people do want personalized ads, or at least think they do, while at the same time most people don't want the behind-the-scenes tech that makes it possible.

[presentation]

I think it also doesn’t really matter if we want or don’t want them - if people are more likely to click on personalized ads (I’d be surprised if they aren’t) then they’ll do it anyway. Just so happens it sounds appealing to some.

[yoavm]

The proposal includes no JS at all, and will probably reduce the amount of JS because it replaces current cookie consent modals and banners.

[yakubin]

It includes JS. See section "8. JavaScript-based interaction". I guess the idea is that just as you can control cookies both via HTTP headers and JS, you will be able to request consent both via HTTP headers and JS.

[yoavm]

My mistake. It does have an option to use JS, though it's not a requirement and it's no-JS by default.

[TheCoelacanth]

They don't.

They think if they keep badgering you enough you will eventually cave and say yes.

[jeofken]

When working in that industry, the cope is thinking people are ok with it, because it’s the “price” of free web content, and consumers are choosing it over anything with a paywall.

I hope free software micropayments payperview can be part of the web! Maybe with GNU Taler or Offset by Freedomlayer[0]

[0] https://www.offsetcredit.org/

[permo-w]

I agree. Wouldn’t we all love to go back to the old old internet, where people did things a) because they wanted to, or b) because you paid them to. Both of these things make sense and are how the world has worked for a long, long time. This vague, nebulous money from ads and tracking has all the wrong incentives. It’s not “make the best hammer” anymore, it’s “make an addictive hammer that you’ll never want to leave your hand”. TV has and had the same problem to a smaller extent, and sports are infected with it too

I honestly think there’s a good case to be made for banning advertising entirely, and replacing it with a societal stipend for art and media, or at least restricting it to specific places. The back of newspapers, for example.

I’m sure there are plenty of problems with and arguments against the idea, but it’s definitely worth discussing

[jeofken]

It’s easy to say “ban this”, but what does it mean? Government laws are nothing without enforcement, and enforcement ultimately means sending armed men to people, and if they resist and protect themselves, ultimately threatening to kill them. Ads are bad, but such force is not justified.

The same with the stipend - we actually have this is my country Sweden, called “press support”. It’s a massive political tool because of the bias of the gov agency workers who administrate it. It has also been used by one party (C) to make a newspaper empire, making the party one of the richest in the world, in large part by milking these press support stipends. The same party recently had multiple pedophilia scandals, which they don’t write about in their own publications.

“Man plans, God laughs” and this applies to any attempt to centrally plan economics.

I personally hope Offset by Freedomlayer can be the solution to micropayments online. If only I could incentivise the author of it to make an iOS version

[qwerty456127]

> Why do they still think we want tracking cookies?

Some people do. I would like to see relevant ads (of good special offers especially) if somebody could guarantee the ads are going to be humble and unintrusive), the goods advertised are of high quality and no-scam, the information they get from tracking can not be seen by any 3rd party (including legal authorities) and used for any purpose other than good recommendations under any circumstances ever.

When I just finished school I didn't mind cookies (and actually hoped ads relevance was going to increase and increase) because I didn't think about the dangers which come with them.

There are people who still believe they have nothing to hide and don't mind relevant offers.

[permo-w]

I’m sure you’re right that a small minority doesn’t mind being tracked and provided personalised ads, but there are other problems too. Advertising brings poor incentives for businesses, even worse than usual. Engagement is king, and product satisfaction is hardly relevant

[fmajid]

We know how small: 4% clicked to opt-in to IDFA tracking in iOS 14. And I suspect a large number of those are people who got confused and clicked on the wrong button.

[permo-w]

that’s assuming iOS users are representative of the general public

[qwerty456127]

I'm curious about the poor incentives for businesses advertising brings. I never imagined business is possible without advertising. If I were starting a business, I would probably target the people who don't block ads (despite the fact I myself do and help all my friends and relatives to).

[permo-w]

Unless I’m misunderstanding you, I think you’re slightly misunderstanding me. It brings poor incentives for companies that make their money from selling advertising space. It does not bring poor incentives for businesses that advertise (besides the desire to censor content, but that’s a different issue).

If you’re still not clear on why it brings poor incentives, or you disagree, think about it this way:

For a company like Netflix, their customers are the people who use their service, and their product is their service. i.e. they’re selling how much you like their content. They don’t care about how long or addictively you watched it, as long as you pay every month. This is healthy.

For a company than runs a TV channel, their customers - for the most part - are advertisers, and their product is their viewers. They’re selling the viewership of their channel to companies. I.e. they’re selling how long and intently they can keep you watching their channel, and how easily they can get you to open your wallet. This is clearly unhealthy.

This applies heavily to the digital media environment too. I can give more examples, if it’d help