5 ms·

Wow, finally. This would be a major quality of life update for browsing the web. As others have stated, not all sites merit the same preferences. Hopefully they

by tysilva 2mo ago

Wow, finally. This would be a major quality of life update for browsing the web. As others have stated, not all sites merit the same preferences. Hopefully they can adapt a middleground of default settings with the ability to customize site by site.

convolvatron 2mo ago
under what circumstances as user would I want to explicitly agree to have my browsing history sent to tens or hundreds of third party tracking aggregators?
- PaulRobinson 2mo ago
  Devil's advocate argument: if they were giving you something in return, and that could be cash, but it might also be "you can have this content for free". In the UK a few news sites have changed cookie banners to "you can accept and see this stuff for free, or you can sign up for a subscription, which would you prefer?". It's the only time I hit accept (and then clear browser history). If blanket preferences from browser signals became the norm, a segment might open up where you would configure preferences and a data broker would make sure you get something in return for your data. At minimum it might force paywalled publishers to consider that as a "lite" subscription option.
  - troupo 2mo ago
    > but it might also be "you can have this content for free". ads don't require invasve and pervasive tracking
    - alt227 2mo ago
      You seem to have missed the point. No ads dont require those things, but companies could start offering content in return for those things instead of ads.
      - Alpha3031 2mo ago
        As I understand it, it is the position of several DPAs that denial of access entirely (i.e. "consent or pay") could contravene the "freely given" requirement of GDPR in most cases, though this has thus far not been tested in court. (see e.g. https://iapp.org/news/a/cjeu-clarifies-cookie-consent-requirements https://iapp.org/news/a/cjeu-clarifies-cookie-consent-requir... https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/edpb-consent-or-pay-models-should-offer-real-choice_en https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/edpb-consent-or-pay-models-s... )
      - troupo 2mo ago
        > but companies could start offering content in return for those things instead of ads. Again, that is not a requirement. If your argument is that they give us content for free because of ads, ads don't require pervasive and invasive tracking. Or hiding stuff behind paywalls (since ads pay for it).
        alt227 2mo ago
        No my arguement is not that they give us free content for ads. It is that in the future it is entirely possible that they offer us free content in return for us allowing pervasive and invasive tracking. Im pretty sure if a company said something like "Here have free netflix for life, as long as you install this browser plugin that provides us with information about your shopping habits" millions of people would bite their hand off.
    - jamiequint 2mo ago
      Effective ads absolutely require knowing more about the user than the context on the page it's a 1-2 orders of magnitude revenue difference for the publisher per-impression.
      - crote 2mo ago
        The effectiveness of ads is highly doubtful in general - especially when you're looking at impressions rather than clicks. And that's before we consider advertising mostly being mostly a zero-sum game. Advertisers are willing to pay more for privacy-invading ads because they believe they are more effective. If privacy-invading ads were illegal they'd just go back to context-dependent ads like they have been using for the thousands of years before the internet was invented, and after an adjustment period the revenue will just bounce back to where it was before. Most advertisers know this already. If privacy-invading ads were so effective, why are all the major brands now using influencers to market their products? Why go through the effort of finding a specific Instagram channel which might be a good fit and convincing the operator to enter a brand deal, when you could also just directly pay Instagram for a highly-targeted ad one swipe away?
      - troupo 2mo ago
        > Effective ads absolutely require knowing more about the user than the context on the page That's what the tracking industry keeps telling you with zero evidence it's true. And then there are studies like this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781162 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781162 which say that targeted ads need to be 100% to 700% more effective to be as profitable as non-targeted ads
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    That's been ruled illegal in the EU, but EU sites still do it. Basically, the consent exception only applies if the user isn't coerced into it. Because coerced consent isn't consent.
- broken-kebab 2mo ago
  If offered something in return, I guess
- alt227 2mo ago
  Ask that question to the 99% of people who click 'Allow All' on cookie banners.
  - fmbb 2mo ago
    Its the biggest button. They did not read the text to agree. It was the fastest way to get the banner to go away. Sometimes they force you to confirm multiple times if you click ”none” or ”minimal”.
- tysilva 2mo ago
  I don't disagree. The ideal state here is really layers of customation for the defaults. Options like reject all, or strictly necessary would be at the forefront. And then it's really up to the individual how they want to proceed when those options are not available.
- scbrg 2mo ago
  I've seen people argue, with a straight face, that they prefer to get ads that are "relevant to them". Including here on Hacker News.
  - jsrozner 2mo ago
    "I like being manipulated by people who want to extract maximal value from me"
    - lucianbr 2mo ago
      Gee I wonder if anyone on HN might have some ulterior reason to write such a statement, without it being true.
      - GJim 2mo ago
        I'm again reminded that a significant percentage of HN readership are those working in US AdTech, who's very salaries are dependent on abusing peoples privacy. Hardly surprising a hefty part of the HN demographic slants towards opposing privacy laws.
  - AlienRobot 2mo ago
    I don't trust anyone who is against "relevant ads," because I always think what they want isn't "irrelevant ads," they want "no ads." But no ads isn't an option.
    - crote 2mo ago
      > But no ads isn't an option. Why? Plenty of websites operate just fine with no or near-zero ads. Just look at the one you are currently on! And what's with confusing "relevant ads" with "privacy-invading targeted ads"? There's still plenty of ads in print media, on television, and on billboards: none of them are invading my privacy, yet they still manage to be relevant by choosing a medium with a certain target demographic. Websites used to do the same, there's no technical reason we can't return to this.
    - 2mo ago
- inigyou 2mo ago
  Sometimes I do it to reward the website for being less shit than most websites.
- ApolloFortyNine 2mo ago
  People want free content online. More than that, they just expect it. Any future law in regards to this will likely just lead to the companies that already got consent (companies you already have accounts with) becoming even deeper entrenched. Non targeted ads pay a small percentage of targeted ads.
singron 2mo ago
As long as it's some automated signal, the User-Agent can use any logic it wants to send it without cooperation. The specifics of how to send the signal don't have to be legislated. E.g. Firefox's Tracking Protection has a global default a site-specific overrides, so it's very likely that they would do the same for this or just combine those features.
- ktosobcy 2mo ago
  Comission wanted that, Google lobbied hard to NOT have automatic sigal… go figure…
micromacrofoot 2mo ago
many will still ask because they want to track you regardless of existing preferences

by tysilva 2mo ago

convolvatron 2mo ago

under what circumstances as user would I want to explicitly agree to have my browsing history sent to tens or hundreds of third party tracking aggregators?

PaulRobinson 2mo ago
Devil's advocate argument: if they were giving you something in return, and that could be cash, but it might also be "you can have this content for free". In the UK a few news sites have changed cookie banners to "you can accept and see this stuff for free, or you can sign up for a subscription, which would you prefer?". It's the only time I hit accept (and then clear browser history). If blanket preferences from browser signals became the norm, a segment might open up where you would configure preferences and a data broker would make sure you get something in return for your data. At minimum it might force paywalled publishers to consider that as a "lite" subscription option.
- troupo 2mo ago
  > but it might also be "you can have this content for free". ads don't require invasve and pervasive tracking
  - alt227 2mo ago
    You seem to have missed the point. No ads dont require those things, but companies could start offering content in return for those things instead of ads.
    - Alpha3031 2mo ago
      As I understand it, it is the position of several DPAs that denial of access entirely (i.e. "consent or pay") could contravene the "freely given" requirement of GDPR in most cases, though this has thus far not been tested in court. (see e.g. https://iapp.org/news/a/cjeu-clarifies-cookie-consent-requirements https://iapp.org/news/a/cjeu-clarifies-cookie-consent-requir... https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/edpb-consent-or-pay-models-should-offer-real-choice_en https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/edpb-consent-or-pay-models-s... )
    - troupo 2mo ago
      > but companies could start offering content in return for those things instead of ads. Again, that is not a requirement. If your argument is that they give us content for free because of ads, ads don't require pervasive and invasive tracking. Or hiding stuff behind paywalls (since ads pay for it).
      - alt227 2mo ago
        No my arguement is not that they give us free content for ads. It is that in the future it is entirely possible that they offer us free content in return for us allowing pervasive and invasive tracking. Im pretty sure if a company said something like "Here have free netflix for life, as long as you install this browser plugin that provides us with information about your shopping habits" millions of people would bite their hand off.
  - jamiequint 2mo ago
    Effective ads absolutely require knowing more about the user than the context on the page it's a 1-2 orders of magnitude revenue difference for the publisher per-impression.
    - crote 2mo ago
      The effectiveness of ads is highly doubtful in general - especially when you're looking at impressions rather than clicks. And that's before we consider advertising mostly being mostly a zero-sum game. Advertisers are willing to pay more for privacy-invading ads because they believe they are more effective. If privacy-invading ads were illegal they'd just go back to context-dependent ads like they have been using for the thousands of years before the internet was invented, and after an adjustment period the revenue will just bounce back to where it was before. Most advertisers know this already. If privacy-invading ads were so effective, why are all the major brands now using influencers to market their products? Why go through the effort of finding a specific Instagram channel which might be a good fit and convincing the operator to enter a brand deal, when you could also just directly pay Instagram for a highly-targeted ad one swipe away?
    - troupo 2mo ago
      > Effective ads absolutely require knowing more about the user than the context on the page That's what the tracking industry keeps telling you with zero evidence it's true. And then there are studies like this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781162 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016781162 which say that targeted ads need to be 100% to 700% more effective to be as profitable as non-targeted ads
- inigyou 2mo ago
  That's been ruled illegal in the EU, but EU sites still do it. Basically, the consent exception only applies if the user isn't coerced into it. Because coerced consent isn't consent.
broken-kebab 2mo ago
If offered something in return, I guess
alt227 2mo ago
Ask that question to the 99% of people who click 'Allow All' on cookie banners.
- fmbb 2mo ago
  Its the biggest button. They did not read the text to agree. It was the fastest way to get the banner to go away. Sometimes they force you to confirm multiple times if you click ”none” or ”minimal”.
tysilva 2mo ago
I don't disagree. The ideal state here is really layers of customation for the defaults. Options like reject all, or strictly necessary would be at the forefront. And then it's really up to the individual how they want to proceed when those options are not available.
scbrg 2mo ago
I've seen people argue, with a straight face, that they prefer to get ads that are "relevant to them". Including here on Hacker News.
- jsrozner 2mo ago
  "I like being manipulated by people who want to extract maximal value from me"
  - lucianbr 2mo ago
    Gee I wonder if anyone on HN might have some ulterior reason to write such a statement, without it being true.
    - GJim 2mo ago
      I'm again reminded that a significant percentage of HN readership are those working in US AdTech, who's very salaries are dependent on abusing peoples privacy. Hardly surprising a hefty part of the HN demographic slants towards opposing privacy laws.
- AlienRobot 2mo ago
  I don't trust anyone who is against "relevant ads," because I always think what they want isn't "irrelevant ads," they want "no ads." But no ads isn't an option.
  - crote 2mo ago
    > But no ads isn't an option. Why? Plenty of websites operate just fine with no or near-zero ads. Just look at the one you are currently on! And what's with confusing "relevant ads" with "privacy-invading targeted ads"? There's still plenty of ads in print media, on television, and on billboards: none of them are invading my privacy, yet they still manage to be relevant by choosing a medium with a certain target demographic. Websites used to do the same, there's no technical reason we can't return to this.
  - 2mo ago
inigyou 2mo ago
Sometimes I do it to reward the website for being less shit than most websites.
ApolloFortyNine 2mo ago
People want free content online. More than that, they just expect it. Any future law in regards to this will likely just lead to the companies that already got consent (companies you already have accounts with) becoming even deeper entrenched. Non targeted ads pay a small percentage of targeted ads.

singron 2mo ago

As long as it's some automated signal, the User-Agent can use any logic it wants to send it without cooperation. The specifics of how to send the signal don't have to be legislated. E.g. Firefox's Tracking Protection has a global default a site-specific overrides, so it's very likely that they would do the same for this or just combine those features.

ktosobcy 2mo ago
Comission wanted that, Google lobbied hard to NOT have automatic sigal… go figure…

micromacrofoot 2mo ago

many will still ask because they want to track you regardless of existing preferences