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

[pandy]

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.

[pandy]

I have this one, but I don't think that's it. Or is it?
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm

[Christian J]

The browser is in control, not the user... Isn't that the same thing as Google is in control?

I suppose the usual excuse is that if we use Chrome or Android at all, we already trust Google completely and must put up with anything it does.

"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?

Vulture? Dodo? Sounds like an attempt to make it more cute, like all those candy-themed Android releases (Jellybean, Lollipop or whatever they called them to stir up hype).

They've won the battle already.

I'm intrigued that they want to make it a web standard. Makes you remember the old web, where many site owners willingly paid for their own webhosting instead of relying on ads. Usually those sites had the best content as well.

And several of the other browsers are also chromium based.
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

That doesn't mean they keep all of the Google code though, perhaps e.g. Brave and Vivaldi are at least slightly cleaner? Then there's the Gecko/Firefox-based forks.

I wonder, if advertizers start using the Privacy Sandbox API instead of having websites serve the traditional javascript-based ad- and tracking code, maybe that means non-supporting browsers will see less ad scripts on websites? At the same time I suspect Big Tech will try even harder to force people to use their own compromised browsers for their Big Tech sites, just like they force you to run javascript already.

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.

I recall it was bundled/sneaked in with some other major software download (Adobe PDF Reader?). Many also clicked on Google's Chrome ads without thinking. Nowadays it seems many users are swayed over to Edge, thanks to Microsoft's equally aggressive marketing.

And they're all WEF Partners, including Mozilla! https://www.weforum.org/partners/#search

[Christian J]

I have this one, but I don't think that's it. Or is it?
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm

I think so, it's the only old bookmark I have.

[pandy]

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.

[Christian J]

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.

That's what I meant, how much content on sites with paid staff is actually of any value? On many such sites it seems most of the content is just written to drive traffic to their ads. Things like click-bait articles, rewrites and similar. Compare that with a hobby site made by an expert in his field.

[pandy]

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.

[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.

[Christian J]

I have a very selective perception (I really do). Things that don't interest me don't register.

That sounds like a blessing. I don't mind static pictures, but anything animated makes pages unreadable.

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.

What do you do during the ad interruptions, keep staring at the screen like a zombie? No way I would watch Youtube videos without ad blockers.

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

I'm easily distracted by passengers talking, but have no problem ignoring ads along the road. I suppose traffic safety regulations put limits on how distracting they're allowed to be. Maybe the web needs similar regulations, to protect people's mental health?

[pandy]

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).

[pandy]

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.

[Christian J]

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.

[Jason Knight]

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.

[pandy]

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.

The empty squares are there and the script tags are there, but no ads for years.

[Christian J]

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]

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.