In a trial run, Google Chrome to corral netizens into groups for tailored web ads rather than target individuals Google on Monday said it will make some of its Privacy Sandbox proposals available for testing with the release of Chrome 89 in March as part of its effort to rewire the technical infrastructure of online advertising. The planned privacy defenses aren't entirely ready yet, but should be, eventually. "Advertising is essential …
Of course! If I can't block ads, Javascript (selectively), and as many trackers/analytics as possible with a browser, then I won't use it. Doesn't leave me many options, really. FF isn't perfect, but I've had no major problems with it – there do seem to be a lot of FF haters around here these days, though.
Now it'll be showing you ads for what you and people who they think might be (or might not be) a bit like you, bought yesterday.
In other words a bit like a combination of behavioural ads and what is "trending".
Fundamentally still bloody useless, highly irritating, still chewing up my data allowance and no reason to stop using Adblock, noscript etc.
If I want a look through amazon, or anything else, I have taken to using DuckDuckGo. I have found this gives me less cr4p later. If I do buy something, they do know I did that but they should also know that I may not want another one.
For example, if I buy a new laptop, I will not be in the market for another one for a while. Stop showing me ads for what you know I have!
And they say "advertising" while meaning "tracking". Those are two unrelated activities, even if of course the latter can be used to try to sell the first better. I'm quite sure the effectiveness of targeted ads is far closer to the independent research number than the Google one - of course Google has nothing else to sell thereby needs to tell people its system is incredibly effective, to publish content-based ads you don't really a company with the WEBKRAKEN algorithm...
Sorry, my original post was badly phrased. I meant that credit should go to the lawmakers rather than to Google for "opt-in" being the default - I very much doubt it was their preference. Why anyone would choose to do so is beyond me for the reason you so clearly state.
"Tick Box 1 if you want ads related to Technology; Box 2 if you want ads related to Cars, Trucks and Bikes; Box 3 if you want ads related to Celebrities or Box 4 if you want ads related to Holidays. Not ticking a Box will automatically enrol you in the Pr0n group."
appears to be the playbook here. Why should anybody, as a user of the web, have to concern themselves whatsoever with befuddling stuff about Federated Learning of Cohorts and First Locally-Executed Decision over Groups just so that they can browse as desired without Google wrapping their slimy tentacles around every single thing they do when online?
It's become an arms race, where attempts to legislate against their gluttonous hunger for every morsel of user-connectable information are being met with ever more deliberately complicated and confusing counterproposals in the hope that if no-one understands the whole thing anymore, it will create lots of scope to sneak loopholes into the regulatory net that will let them carry on regardless.
Instead of all this complicated jargony obfuscation, force them to understand the concept of You're Not Allowed To Intrude On My Privacy In Order To Sell Advertising And Fling It At Me.
Chrome = Continue heaping rubbish over my eyeballs. I just hate how so many people have fallen for its' supposed superiority, when it's a complete user surveillance tool.
> Explain why
Well, you missed the rest of the sentence: "Keep the web open for everyone wanting to make an easy buck".
They weren't speaking about you and me, we're just the sheep providing the wool, milk and meat they make their money with.
Advertising has been a necessary evil since the hay day of print media when people were actually paying for the content through buying magazine, newspaper, and then later on TV for commercial channels.
While there are people who will create content and not expect anything in return because they are passionate about the topic, most people who creating content and then letting people to view it for free online want a way to get money back in return. And so far no one has come up with a better option than advertising. Even ElReg where we are all on now, wouldn't be around if it weren't for the ads around the content.
The issue I have is not with adverting but with the tracking and privacy concerns that come with it and how intrusive ads have become. If i had the option to dismiss ads i wasn't interested in and can choose topics that I was wanting to see ads about and they were just text or images, not full of javascript and other content that slows down my PC then I would be happy with the content/ads balance if it keeps website which I find useful free to use.
Agreed. I really don't mind advertising. But I have an ad blocker because of the tracking and malware it prevents. And sites that insist I disable my adblocker before visiting - fine, I'll go elsewhere. Other sites (like El Reg) point out the adblocker and politely ask if they can show ads that won't trip the adblocker - yeah, sure, go right ahead.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
