• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    5 months ago

    The thing is, what Google has rolled out is really fucking good already. Sites only get to know general “topics”, and only ones you’ve used recently. It’s controlled by your own browser so you can easily opt out entirely or block certain topics you don’t want from being associated with you. They also specifically decided not to add topics for sensitive topics from even being available in the Topics API.

    It’s really fucking good for privacy, unless you’re an extremist who believes there shouldn’t be anything even vaguely resembling relevant advertising. Which is the exact same group of people criticising Firefox here. And also the exact same group of people inadvertently extending the life of 3rd party cookies that Google is trying so desperately to kill off. But they can’t kill it off because the privacy extremists have meant take-up of Topics isn’t high enough.

    • adarza@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      the thing is, i don’t trust google. they’re an ad company. now that they have the marketshare, they’ve been leveraging it, hard. they’re changing the game for their own selfish, profit-driven purposes–not for users or users privacy and security, not for the health of the web, or anything else they may try to claim. it’s all about them making as much money as they can off you, your eyeballs, and your data.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        You don’t have to “trust” them. You can just read the spec. See what it actually does for yourself.

        I have no doubt that Google did not create this out of the good of their heart. They know 3rd party cookies are a dying tech and they need a replacement. But FLoC, their earlier attempt at a replacement, received a lot of very justified pushback for being a privacy nightmare. And they abandoned it, realising their error. In creating Topics, they’ve done a really good job of coming up with something that can support advertiser-funded business models while still respecting people’s privacy by design.

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It’s someone not willing to make any modest concessions in order to make the vast array of free content available viable to create. Modest concessions like your browser saying “here’s a small subset of topics the person might be interested in”. You’ve got to be pretty extremist to suggest that that’s privacy-invading.

        • jet@hackertalks.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          If the concession removes somebody’s privacy, it is a privacy invalidating concession. Your definition not mine

          Software running on my computer, should be my agent, representing my interests, and if I just want to display data transmitted over the network, and not send any data back, that should be within my explicit control. Not even talking about privacy, talking about agency.

          If open source software, written by a non-profit, wants to violate my agency with opt outs rather than explicit consensual opt-ins. At the very least it’s not respecting my privacy, and at worst it’s trying to lie to me, remove my agency from my own devices.

          You can say there’s a social contract, that people online have to feed the advertising machines, and I’m happy to debate you about that. There is utility there for sure, but saying you’re an extremist if you don’t want to participate is also an extreme position. And I don’t think it’s reasonable

          • Zagorath@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            Topics is in your control. It’s all in your control. You can turn off specific topics you don’t want, or disable it entirely if you really want to. Browsers choosing not to implement it has nothing to do with agency, and appeals to that notion merely belie either ignorance or bad faith.

            • jet@hackertalks.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              You are poorly mannered debate partner. You have just said I am either ignorant or arguing in bad faith. You have denied me agency of my own opinions.

              I will no longer converse with you

              • Zagorath@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                Not ignorant in general, and I’m sorry if it came across that way.

                But ignorant about how Topics works, yes. To assert that Topics takes away agency can only be bad faith or ignorance.