Technology

59534 readers

3195 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

321

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

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee -4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Did I? You signed up for an account where data collection is wide open to everyone.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Which was irrelevant.

The user had commented that they didn't want to sign up to browse content and then they further clarified that making a comment was worth signing up for sometimes.

But for some reason you are insisting the context doesn't matter? Either signup is always good or bad, we have to choose?

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee -3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Overall I’m just tired of hearing how _____ is going to ruin the web, or how evangelical people get about not doing something on principle. Sites that “login-wall” their content aren’t going to succeed, but people refusing to create an account acting all doom and gloom are getting to be insufferable.

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

people refusing to create an account acting all doom and gloom are getting to be insufferable

I'm not doom and gloom, I think this is a good step in the right direction.

Users should be able to control what websites have access to their data and a sign in process achieves that. Only sign into a site if you are happy with the website's privacy policy. I have an account on this website because it has in the privacy policy:

We do not sell or disclose user data under any condition, unless required by relevant data protection authorities, any other law enforcement authorities, or if the account owner requests the data themselves.

The thing that offends me the most about tracking across the internet is you are tracked wether you agree to a website's privacy policy or not. Usually you can't even read the privacy policy without being tracked.

Users who don't care about any of that can simply tap this button in Chrome (and Google could easily make it even more seamless if they want to, with a simple "share my stuff with every website I visit" setting):

There are also less invasive versions of that, such as the Passkeys standard, where you just share a unique id web the website - no name or email address. Passkeys are supported in every modern browser and the prompt is pretty similar to the screenshot above, minus the 'share your name/email/picture' bit.

Personally, I'm only going to sign into websites that I trust. 99.999% of the internet is run by companies i have never even heard of, so obviously I don't trust them. And some of the sites I have heard of (e.g. Twitter, Reddit), I definitely don't trust. But there are a few sites like lemmy.world which I trust and there are also plenty of websites websites that do even less tracking than Lemmy. Including a bunch that are ad supported... because you can show an ad to a visitor without knowing the personal details of that visitor.

As things stand right now, I run a browser extension that stops websites from tracking me and they do that by blocking all ads. I don't see that as a sustainable option - it means those websites are losing money whenever I visit the website. Far better, far more honest, if I just don't visit those websites at all. But I need to know what the website's tracking policy is before i can make that choice, so they need to start asking for permission.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

Write your congress person to enact a GDPR-like Bill. Short of that, as you've said, idk how sites are going to make money. The current situation is majorly self-inflicted. We don't want to pay, so they have ads. We don't want to see ads, so they collect and sell data. Now that VC money has dried up, it's going to get worse and there's no other answer.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

the user just stated an opinion. you still didn't explain why the context didn't matter to you. sounds like you're one of those people who is annoyed by principals. maybe Lemmy is not for you.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You may be right about the last point. My feed is full of posts from three days ago, talk of cutting off parts of the fediverse that seems to be the antithesis of federation, and other evangelical stances that are abandoned the second consequences come up. It was amusing at first, but it’s starting to seem like a waste of time. Idk.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

stances that are abandoned the second consequences come up.

So what you're saying is that people have to weigh pros and cons and they aren't binary thinkers like you. Great job buddy

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh, thanks for reminding me; Also people who misrepresent your position and write it off in one sentence. You have no idea what I'm talking about.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Just trying to illustrate to you what you're doing. You're ignoring the point, but the above responses are all very consistent in that way and in ignoring context entirely