[rapind]

> Some people in the privacy community seem to think advertising and tracking in any form should not exist and will always make a stink about whatever incarnation they take.

I don't think I'm in the "privacy community". It's my opinion that advertising will always exist, but tracking is complete horseshit and should be abolished ASAP. I don't think this is a very unpopular opinion either. There seems to be an attempt to Stockholm us all into thinking tracking is a necessary evil we must accept.

[yetanotherasian]

I'm not apologizing for google, but think many people who are against all forms of this aren't really thinking the problem through. The same way newspapers said "stop linking headlines to us" and then once some popular service did and all their traffic disappeared they came back and said "oh, wait, no, you can link to us"

For the ads, a large portion of the internet that people want (maybe not you in particular but lots of people in general), run on ads. Arstechnica runs on ads, theverge runs on ads, slashdot runs on ads, the register runs on ads, kotaku runs on ads, tech crunch run on ads. To name a few sites that might be popular here

If those sites can't support themselves they'll more than likely disappear. If all those sites disappeared I feel like plenty of people (maybe not you but more people than not) would realize that they thought they wanted (zero disclose) lead to outcomes they didn't want

I feel like Google is genuinely trying to do something positive here. Provide a way of those sites to still target ads, still check if an ad was effective, still try to check for bad actors making fake clicks, but also be practically un-attributable to a single user.

Going through the actual specs, they really are trying to make it so you can't track and individual but sites can still function based on ads.

Is it in Google own interest? Yes. But it's also in the interest of sites people want which means it's also in the interest of the people who want those sites.

Apple on the other hand, would prefer you be tracked directly by having you download an app for each site where that app can track you way more than a browser with these features can track you.

[rapind]

> If those sites can't support themselves they'll more than likely disappear.

Newspapers and television (pre-digital) managed to survive just fine on advertising before tracking was feasible. There are also subscription services. Content is not going to simply disappear if tracking goes away. Sites that depend on tracking for their survival will adapt or die, but that's fine, businesses fail every day, and I'm certainly not sympathetic to businesses who depend on what I would call unethical practices.

The problem is when regulators ignore an industry for years upon years (capture). Entire industries can grow out of practices that would otherwise have been restricted. The longer it takes, the harder it becomes to implement sane regulation. Instead we just get used to what's most likely a shittier society (the political impact of tracking and nudging).

[account42]

> For the ads, a large portion of the internet that people want (maybe not you in particular but lots of people in general), run on ads.

The internet I want is one with sites run by individuals doing it because they are passionate about certain topics, NOT because it can be profitable when you slap ads on it. Today, the former has a hard time gaining visibility because the latter has much more incentive to make sure you land on their content farm before other sites. Many people don't even know that the former exist. But that doesn't mean that we need the latter. The internet does NOT depend on ads.

> Arstechnica runs on ads, theverge runs on ads, slashdot runs on ads, the register runs on ads, kotaku runs on ads, tech crunch run on ads. To name a few sites that might be popular here

And Somalia runs on piracy so we need to make sure piracy remains possible? Fuck no. Those sites run on ads because that's currently the path of least resistance. They have alternatives.

> If those sites can't support themselves they'll more than likely disappear.

And for a lot of sites, that's OK. There will be replacements.

> If all those sites disappeared

They won't (at least not without replacement) as long as people have a use for the content they provide.

> I feel like Google is genuinely trying to do something positive here.

Are you perhaps interested in buying a bridge?

> Going through the actual specs, they really are trying to make it so you can't track and individual but sites can still function based on ads.

Anything that supports ads is decidedly bad. Slightly less bad is still bad.

> means it's also in the interest of the people who want those sites.

Nope.

> Apple on the other hand

is irrelevant. I can avoid apple devices but there is only one Internet.