https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_Sandbox
To me it sounds like the browser will run preinstalled spyware that profiles the user and displays ads, but without sending individual user data back to Google (we promise). Unlike javascript - that can also spy on the user and display ads - I assume Privacy Sandbox can't be disabled easily.
"In addition, with the launch of the Chrome 115 release in July, Google is making Privacy Sandbox’s relevance and measurement APIs generally available to all Chrome users, making it easy for developers to test these APIs with live traffic.
...
It’s worth noting that today, users can already turn on the Privacy Sandbox trials in Chrome. The APIs have been available for testing since the launch of the Chrome 101 beta."
https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/18/google-will-disable-third-party-cookies-for-1-of-chrome-users-in-q1-2024/amp/?guccounter=1
The browser is in control, not the user... Isn't that the same thing as Google is in control?
"The initiative includes Federated Learning of Cohorts as well as other proposed technologies,[3] many of which have bird-themed names". What does that even mean? Bird names?
They've won the battle already. And several of the other browsers are also chromium based.
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
I commented on another forum (not web related). Someone had found a way to do something more quickly and it "works in all browsers". I tried it. Didn't work in any of mine. FF, Edge... I said so. His answer was: FF? Who uses that in 2023?. So he really meant it works in Chrome when he said it works in all browsers. I humbly said that Edge is based on chromium, but he ignored that.
What beats me is why people prefer Chrome. What does it have that people want? I only see what it lacks. And what it does that I don't want.
BTW what was that browser statistics site we always referred to back in the day? I'd like to see if it's still around, but I don't find it among my old bookmarks.
I have this one, but I don't think that's it. Or is it?
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
OK. I also think that's the site now.
I don't think we'll see less ads. They'll use both systems.
There is so much involved in a site nowadays. I don't mean sites like Sue-Ellen's blog. But big sites. Hosting is just a small part, even if that probably still can be costly with lots of traffic and heavy content like video (that isn't on Youtube). With a whole staff working with the site there must be an income. If they don't sell anything what's left other than ads? I actually get that.
There are some. One of the largest (probably the largest) photography related site was supposed to close down April 10. But it's still there and no one knows what's going to happen. They have a huge camera and lens data base with tests (performed by them) of many but not all gear, going back to the first digital cameras. That ain't cheap. It began as a private initiative, but alas Amazon bought it some years ago and now Amazons needs to cut down on staff. I think that maybe the loud outcry all over the web made them change their mind about trashing a resource like this. They did say at one point that the site at least would be archived, but now they are just silent.
Another example from the photography world is https://www.lenstip.com/ . They also perform tests of the lenses they review, even if not as professional as the first site used to do in their prime, but good enough if you are aware of the pitfalls. I've had great use of them.
I'm sure there are oodles of similar sites for other areas of interest that have staff and costs other than hosting/server(s), that aren't just about writing but are based on real world hands on work that may require equipment, like the lens tests.
Yes there are certainly a few, but surely they could get funding by other means than advertizing? Even Youtube content creators seem to make money by optional patronage, membership fees or t-shirt sales (which is a good thing, since it seems Youtube keeps most of the ad revenue).
Perhaps direct donations to ordinary web sites works less well, since visitors won't connect as well with a dry website compared with say charismatic Youtube personalities. But now that you mentioned photography I was reminded of https://kenrockwell.com/ last time I checked he supposedly made a living from it in various ways (especially though affiliate links, I suspect).
Youtubers and the like is a different game. They get a little here and a little there, from all the sources we've mentioned. But they don't (mostly) pay for staff, office or equipment (more than a camera) and not even a server.
I don't block ads. I find the space they leave more annoying than the actual ads. I don't see them anyway. I have a very selective perception (I really do). Things that don't interest me don't register. Same when I'm driving a car. I have total control of the traffic situation ( ), notice important signs and so on, but if I'm listening to radio or talking to passenger or just isn't focused on it I can miss an exit sign and I mostly don't notice totally irrelevant signs like a commercial one out in a field. Same with telly. I don't "see" the commercials. I may remember a couple of words and an annoying voice a few minutes but I mostly have no idea what the commercial was for. I just turn my brain off. It's useful sometimes. I *think* it's an advantage in traffic. I've talked to a friend that always has found driving tiresome (while I don't). As I suspected she said she pays as much attention to everything, she didn't even understand when I was talking about at first. Some times it's a little annoying. I live close to a square, shops all around it. It has happened I say to a friend that I just noticed a new restaurant or shop has opened and (s)he answered "that was year ago". Or sports. I have zero interest in that. I notice there's a lot of annoying sports on TV or in papers, but it goes right through my mind. Once I asked a friend if there why there was so much sport on TV. The answer was it's OS. I hadn't registered that.
I just think about something else or do something else, like check email or go to the bathroom.
I sometimes like the commercial breaks. Say I need to wash dishes but start to watch a movie instead. With commercials I get it done during the movie. Without I would leave it until it was too late (I live in an apartment and can't make noise late at night).
Or take this site. I doubt Darin would sell many T-shirts should he want to raise some money. No one would pay for subsription either. The only way is what was tried already, ads.
Are there still ads here? I haven't seen. But a forum like this shouldn't be too expensive to host at your own expense, and no staff that needs to be paid.
My takeaway is that it's just more hoodoo-voodoo marketing scam BS. I mean it seems the entire point of it is to make advertisers lives easier whilst attempting to silence security concerns with marketspeak double-talk and wishful thinking.
Everything I've read on the topic is overburdened with glittering generalities, card stacking, transfer, and high sounding words devoid of actual meaning, reason, or even fact.
I mean seriously, they're trying to say they're respecting our privacy by creating a new means of tracking people, so that they aren't tracking people? Yeah.
If anything it's just more proof that advertisers are losing their minds as the effectiveness and efficacy of advertising continues to spiral down the drain. Reminds me of a Cracked video from a decade ago about the topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcGVbo57bAU
Which made me laugh for the simple fact that when Cracked is the voice of reason in the room, there's something WRONG with this world.
Influencers still have impact, I think. A mystery to me. When all that started it took a long time before I understood what an influencer was. I understood it was bloggers and such, but assumed they were knowledgeable people who had an impact on politics or economy because of their skills. Took years because I understood they were people like Kissie and Blondinbella (local anorectic and facelifted teen idiots) that had an impact on what people bought online.
This supposedly turns off the new tracking, in case if you must use Google Chrome:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/how-turn-googles-privacy-sandbox-ad-tracking-and-why-you-should
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)