![]() |
![]() |
Christian J |
![]()
Post
#1
|
. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: WDG Moderators Posts: 9,687 Joined: 10-August 06 Member No.: 7 ![]() |
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. |
![]() ![]() |
Jason Knight |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Advanced Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 109 Joined: 25-December 22 Member No.: 28,719 ![]() |
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. |
Christian J |
![]()
Post
#3
|
. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: WDG Moderators Posts: 9,687 Joined: 10-August 06 Member No.: 7 ![]() |
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. Google also needs to convince their real customers, the companies buying advertizing space from Google, that Google ads have any effect and are still worth paying for. So maybe the hoodoo-voodoo marketing scam BS is directed at them. I wouldn't be surprised if Google secretly used bots to create fake views and clicks on their own ads, for the sole purpose of exaggerating their effectiveness (weren't there claims about that a few years ago, BTW?). Also, today I suspect astro-turfing, influencers, shills and trolls are much more effective at influencing public opinion than traditional ads. Maybe the goal of Google's AI research is to automate the writing of such shill posts. That in return should make the Dead Internet Theory come true for real. ![]() |
pandy |
![]()
Post
#4
|
🌟Computer says no🌟 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: WDG Moderators Posts: 20,744 Joined: 9-August 06 Member No.: 6 ![]() |
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.
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd June 2024 - 12:41 PM |