This episode of Security Now covered Google’s plan to deprecate third party cookies and the reaction from advertising organizations and websites.

The articles and the opinions of the show hosts are that it may have negative or unintended consequences as rather than relying on Google’s proposed ad selection scheme being run on the client side (hiding information from the advertiser), instead they are demanding first party information from the sites regarding their user’s identification.

The article predicts that rather than privacy increasing, a majority of websites may demand user registration so they can collect personal details and force user consent to provide that data to advertisers.

What’s your opinion of website advertising, privacy, and data collection?

  • Would you refuse to visit websites that force registration even if the account is free?
  • What’s all the fuss about, you don’t care?
  • Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?
  • Would this limit your visiting of websites to only a narrow few you are willing to trade personal details for?
  • Is this a bad thing for the internet experience as whole, or just another progression of technology?
  • Is this no different from using any other technology platform that’s free (If it’s free, you’re the product)?
  • Should website owners just accept a lower revenue model and adapt their business, rather than seeking higher / unfair revenues from privacy invasive practices of the past?
  • RedFoxOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Yeah, large portions of economies are being driven by consumption. I feel like so much stuff is just landfill fodder.

    Massive affects of advertising

    I was hoping you might have some examples, I’m not sure.

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Here’s an example.

      I was advertised camel smokes as a kid.

      Everytime I relapse it’s on camels. Camels are shitty and cheap.

      I relapse and then switch to a brand that’s not garbage. Then figure out again how to beat the addiction.

      It’s a substance use disorder directly caused by advertising. And cancer causing (so my physical environment).

      Here’s another mental illness that’s very easy to trace back to advertising.

      Eating disorders.

      • RedFoxOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I think those are good examples, thanks.

        Off topic: I don’t smoke, but do generally hate smoking so much. I dislike the smell, and the affects on people around the user, like you said. I appreciate vaping. Not because of some hopeful idea that it would be safer, but cause I either can’t smell it, or it smells like cotton candy. Who doesn’t love the smell of cotton candy?

        Also, props for quitting all the times you have. I’m probably majorly addicted to caffeine. Like smokers tell me they have one first thing in the morning, coffee is the first desire after I’m out of bed. I’ve already limited myself to two-ish cups/day, but I don’t think that helped. Coffee also has negative effects on others…fortunately, my wife has coffee breath too :)

        • iquanyin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          just to say, it’s about 95% less full of harmful chemicals. even opponents admit that. vaping is safer. not safe but safer. and unlike the 200+ times i tried to quite over 45 years (hypnosis, gum, patch, groups, acupuncture, and a heap 'cold turkey), it took me just a few years to quit by first switching to vapes. and within a month of the switch, i felt better in every way. all the bs restrictions in place are so dumb.

          • RedFoxOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            I’m glad that helped. Was it the ability to dose down intentionally that helped?

          • treefrog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            It’s also more addictive than tobacco. Which isn’t saying it’s not safer. But the vape ROA hits the brain faster than smoking. This reinforces the addiction cycle more effectively. One of the reasons crack cocaine is so fucking addictive. It’s vaped cocaine.

            • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              No the other way around. Smoking hits you very fast, almost instantly because it’s very fine particles that pass into the bloodstream. Vaping is much slower because it’s vaporized droplets that get absorbed slowly through mucus membrane, and it’s less effective (like 50% effective after 30 min vs. 100% after 5 min). Nicotine salt e-liquid “improves” that a bit to hit faster, to help people stop smoking. You can find articles and papers on this.

              • treefrog@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Huh… I was basing this info off huberman labs episode on nicotine. He’s usually very accurate (he’s a neurobiologist and a professor at a major university)

        • Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Vaping has associated the smell of cotton candy with assholes who can’t keep their smelly (and potentially dangerous) substance abuse away from unconsenting people, because they think no one will mind because it smells like cotton candy.

          Edit: I legitimately prefer the smell of cigarettes at this point. At least no one’s deluding themselves about the social acceptability of that.

          • iquanyin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            let’s ban it along with cooking smells, car exhaust, perfume, and cheap deodorant. and any other smells you personally don’t like. sound good?

            • Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              I should just let this go, but part of what offends me about vaping is that people will do it instead of smoking in spaces where smoking is explicitly banned. Since it’s smoking adjacent to me mentally (and to a limited extent in causing harm to third parties), I dislike that. And we do ban things like perfume in gyms because it causes unreasonably unpleasant experiences for the people around you, and I shower after grilling or frying if I’m going out, because it is unpleasant for the people around me. It’s different degrees of unpleasantness for everything, but I don’t think it’s unfair for me to dislike people blowing vape clouds in my face indoors.

              • iquanyin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                where i live, you can’t vape where you can’t smoke, so we don’t have that issue. i can see how it would bug people, for sure.

            • Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Just saying that second hand vaping exposure seems to be something that isn’t well understood, but potentially harmful. Just like how vaping is proving not to be harmless to the paper these days. That’s what differentiates it from those other smells you’re mentioning to me.

              • iquanyin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                it’s the same stuff as in digger machines at shows. anyway, in my town you can vape whet you can smoke. which is outside.

            • RedFoxOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              cooking smells

              I wonder if the smell of hamburger is offensive to vegans?

        • treefrog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I was referring to quality lol

          I can buy a pack of American Spirits and half a smoke will satisfy me.

          I finish a Camel, and I’m like, wtf happened to that thing?

    • hcbxzz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The entire goal is to use money to change your behavior. They’re inherently manipulative by definition. It’s literally weaponized mass manipulation. There’s no way to spin that as a positive effect.

      If you think about it in terms of it’s effects, advertising is the closest thing we have to mind control: companies are paying money to change the behavior of millions of people. Even without any concrete examples, you can easily see how dystopic it really is when you just think about the intention alone

    • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Sorry I don’t have any great sources on this. It’s rather speculation because how could you research this scientifically? Even if you could, an experiment like that would actually be unethical! And who would fund this, there is no way to talk in mainstream about advertising without running against massive financial interests. There are some search results but most of those articles look like mental garbage.

      My guess is that because we’re constantly being told what to consume our minds work quite differently from what they would without advertising.

      Our minds constantly have to resist intrusive advertising and psychological manipulation which means we constantly have to switch between and adversarial mindset and whatever content we were watching / reading. Or we become obedient and just “let the advertising wash through us”. And advertising constantly has to find new ways to activate our emotions.

      Just as massive is the effect on content produced, there is a “natural selection” that any content that helps sell advertisement is more successful on the market. It’s not just that you can’t piss off your advertiser but that generally you want the consumer to be in a certain mood - or that content producers who do this naturally are more successful and grow.

      Then there are privacy concerns which reduce humans to machines and creates a powerful system that can and is abused for political control (public relations).

      How can any of that not have massive societal impacts, since it’s being done on a massive scale and is near ubiquitous? How can anyone assume these effects are not incredibly bad?

      You could have a country banning advertising that has a kind of “content tax” that is funded publicly and administered independent from the government through separate elections. And that has strict mandates and distributes the money to news papers, websites, movies and video creators dependent on views - similar to music rights agencies. But none of this is even talked about. We’ve completely lost the ability to even think seriously about how to improve our society. I believe in large part this is due to advertising.

      PS: There is a film called “Branded (2012)” about the “horrors of advertising”.

      • RedFoxOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        My guess is that because we’re constantly being told what to consume our minds work quite differently from what they would without advertising.

        Our minds constantly have to resist intrusive advertising and psychological manipulation.

        I stopped quoting because you made many good points. I imagine we could find some supporting material for this basic idea. It seems like a safe idea to say people adapt to the environment they are in, including our thinking patterns based on what we take in and feed our minds (books, media, streaming, conversation, etc).

        I wouldn’t be eager for a new tax, but the creative problem solving and imagining new ways to do things is good.

        Also, thanks for the movie mention.

      • iquanyin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        i have an idea. let people buy the books and magazines. the ones people want to read are successful. others oh well. i’m a genius!

        also: you have a good point about our minds working differently.