Google Privacy Sandbox Options

[Christian J]

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-wi...p/?guccounter=1

[Christian J]

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).

[pandy]

Yes there are certainly a few, but surely they could get funding by other means than advertizing?

Like what? Subscription doesn't work. Sponsors? If for example lenstip was sponsored by a camera brand, no one would trust their tests. What more is there?

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).

T-shirts sale is pocket money, I think. Unless you can sell a whole lot. And who would buy a T with, say, lenstip.com printed across the chest? Not I. Above all I wouldn't pay the shipping from US + Swedsh VAT, custom fees and the post office's fee for collecting the two first... Patronage - see above.

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).

Rockwell seems to be a one man show. And he sells his photos, maybe also his services, so he has an income from that too. He only needs to keep himself floating. No salaries to pay, no equipment (other then his cameras and lenses), no rent.

And I don't know if I find the begging for donations more tolerable than ads.

[Christian J]

Like what? Subscription doesn't work.

Surprisingly they do seem to work for some people, mostly video creators. I could be wrong though, perhaps it's all mostly a hobby for them and they really live off their spouses or family wealth.

Sponsors? If for example lenstip was sponsored by a camera brand, no one would trust their tests.

Alas that's nothing new, traditionally a brand would buy ads in a printed magazine and then expect positive coverage (or they'd pull their advertizing, unless
perhaps if their competitors kept advertizing, in which case the brand wouldn't dare to be left out). Today I also see a lot of popular gear reviewers on Youtube that get equipment lent to them by manufacturers (but of course promise the latter has no say in the reviews). In that sense maybe Google ads are better by diluting the advertizing brands influence over what sites they end up on or not (though I recall you can control such things even with Google's ads).

I do know some forums that get sponsored by stores, in return for a simple, unobtrusive top banner. I haven't seen any attempts at censoring negative forum posts about those stores, maybe the situation simply has not occured yet. One forum used to offer sponsored forum sections for supporting brands, where the latter could offer support to their customers and at the same time get exposure.

T-shirts sale is pocket money, I think. Unless you can sell a whole lot.

Yes this only matters for accounts with say a million followers or more. Then again, how much do you really make on ads?

Rockwell seems to be a one man show. And he sells his photos, maybe also his services, so he has an income from that too. He only needs to keep himself floating. No salaries to pay, no equipment (other then his cameras and lenses), no rent.

He does test a lot of gear (or used to - I haven't been there for a few years), I don't know if he buys it or it's lent/given to him. Being a one man show doesn't matter, since more staff should result in more content (and thus more visitors/donations/income, otherwise your hiring philospohy would be flawed).

And I don't know if I find the begging for donations more tolerable than ads.

I'm not too annoyed by the begging. But there's no way I could get used to intrusive ads, after blocking them for so many years, so if Google Privacy Sandbox managed to circumvent ad blocking my web use would be reduced drastically.

[pandy]

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.