
Marketers are panicking over Google's plan to yank cookies from advertising - arabadzhiev
https://www.businessinsider.com/advertisers-are-panicking-over-googles-plan-to-ditch-cookies-2020-2
======
allovernow
At this point I'm absolutely convinced that anything bad for adtech is good
for society. Absolute profit driven evil.

An entire industry built around psychological manipulation for the sole
purpose of convincing people to consume products that they likely don't need,
while simulataneously setting the stage for an Orweillian surveillance
state... No one with a conscience should be working in adtech.

And there are far more insidious consequences to adware. I'm just speculating,
but I have a feeling that when non-technical society is bombarded by ads, its
capacity for critical analysis of information is reduced. Given the ubiquity
of ads, and the many decisions that humans must make personally and
professionally every day, if this is true it has a seriously negative ripple
effect which permeates much of human endeavor.

~~~
friendlybus
Who defines what people need? Buying a can of soda is not something people
need when water is so cheap. Buying that soda (as a collective effort) keeps
thousands of people employed, and keeps their families growing. Society relies
on advertising. The Orwellian state has been growing for decades. Adtech is no
unique villain in this story.

Adtech has been used to sell copies of 1984 and A Brave New World. Something
people arguably don't need to survive, and enjoy reading anyway.

Bill Hicks had a great bit on advertisers. I think the argument for adtech's
potential for evil can be better articulated. After all, ublock origin,
adblocking tech has millions of users. How effective could the brainwashing be
if people are choosing to leave it?

~~~
manicdee
Why do I need to work to further someone else’s goals just to earn currency to
“pay my way”?

How does encouraging people to buy Coke help the nation more than just giving
that money directly to the public utilities?

~~~
friendlybus
Because there needs to be something for 330mil people to do and providing each
other with more options for having a quality life is a valuable pursuit. We
need doctors, engineers and a life outside work. Soda has its place as an
entertainment and socializing drink.

Arguing against adtech and work are two separate things. Distribution of
resources will always be controlled. Currency used to buy things is a method
of directing resources to people who behave in a way that continues the
system. What system do you think works better? I don't know what your goals
are, maybe they are achievable without working for the man.

~~~
manicdee
> Because there needs to be something for 330mil people to do

I am sure people could find something to do that was productive and fulfilling
if they weren’t required to be debt slaves simply to put food on the table.

Manufacturing dietary diseases doesn’t seem to be productive or fulfilling to
me. The idea that manufacturing soda is meaningful and productive use of
peoples’ time is the broken window fallacy. That, or the very worst of
fetishising GDP-as-a-measure-of-quality-of-life.

~~~
friendlybus
The diseases from an FDA approved soda come from lifetimes of over-consumption
of an entertainment product. Exercise leads to injuries from overwork, eating
too much asparagus has it's downsides, too much alcohol or sugar are problems.
Nothing is pure and infinite.

You don't need to push meaning to it's extreme to prove it's existence. It
exists as it is. Soda is a good party drink and sweet drink for restaurants.
People drink a few empty and sweet calories to refresh themselves and
socialize. That's all it is, it's not a demon, it's not a saint. It's just
fizzy water. It keeps many people at soda companies employed, it keeps many
restaurants in profit.

Advertising soda is a fine way to have people put food on their table. If you
want to productive and fulfilling work, go do it. You can't erase the fact
that food is a limited resource that requires a system of distribution and we
use money for allocating who and who can not obtain food. In a world where
food were truly free and magically appeared out of thin air then there would
be no starving people and you could do eat whatever you wanted, whenever you
wanted.

You would still "wage slave" for a house, or running water, or whatever else.
If you want to live a zero-cost life, build a log cabin in the woods and grow
your own food, install your own solar panels. You will be doing the same work
you're paying others to do right now but far less efficiently and with greater
restrictions. You wouldn't have soda, or anything you couldn't manufacture
yourself. But you would have control over the distribution of resources, there
you go.

------
legitster
I work in marketing. It's hard to anticipate the all the effects, but we have
of yet no reason to be too concerned. Google is unclear on how it will affect
the options of their advertisements, but we anticipate that however they
implement the rules, their own network will come out on top, and we will have
even less reason to use any other advertisement network (surprise, surprise).

I wonder if this will finally be the death of display advertising - the value
is already insanely low. And for the most part we have moved on to other
channels.

------
MrPatan
Is this a broadside against Facebook's trackers?

Does anyone believe for one picosecond they will block their own cookies? I
switched to Firefox when I tried to block all 3rd aprty cookies on Chrome and
found some (Google's) that just wouldn't disappear.

~~~
skymt
As noted in a recent (and very busy) thread, Chrome sends an installation-
specific ID to Google domains in a special header. This can easily be used as
an identifier for tracking in the absence of cookies, and it's an advantage
that Google's competitors lack.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22236106](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22236106)

------
unexaminedlife
Not sure, but it seems there may be a fundamental question being asked here.
If I trust somedomain.com, does this automatically mean I trust advertisers on
said website? In fact it becomes even clearer where the trust boundary lies
when taking into account the fact that even somedomain.com is putting
advertising decisions into the hands of a 3rd party.

So, how far should the infrastructure of the web go in terms of assuming trust
boundaries transcend the immediate trust and obvious relationship between end
user and domain?

~~~
eska
> If I trust somedomain.com, does this automatically mean I trust advertisers
> on said website?

And vice versa, if I don't trust advertisers on somedomain.com, does this
automatically mean I don't trust said website? The answer for many people is
yes and it results in them not visiting them anymore.

------
Animats
So Chrome is getting something Firefox has has for years. I've had third-party
cookies blocked for the last decade. Plus Privacy Badger.

------
olliej
This is something safari has being doing by default for more than a decade (I
think from the very first version).

Firefox has been doing it for a while now as well iirc.

Chrome only appears to be doing it now that they’ve got people logging into
their browser, and even if not, sending a unique ID to googles servers - some
far more powerful and persistent than anything a cookie ever gave.

------
Izkata
Amusingly, the paywall appears to be frontend-only. Stop the page from
finishing loading before the modal appears and you can read the whole thing.

> The IAB Tech Lab this week called for publishers, advertisers, and adtech
> companies to unite to create standards and a replacement for third-party
> cookies on browsers like Chrome, Apple's Safari and Mozilla-owned Firefox.
> Dubbed Project Rearc, the effort is eventually supposed to include a
> consumer ad campaign to reach 2 billion people.

...bwuh?

~~~
olliej
IAB also wants things like safaris intelligent tracking prevention to be
illegal.

In their ideal world every browser would be required to include a persistent
unique per user ID.

------
rdiddly
Tangent, it bugs me the degree to which Google is thought of, by people
including this headline writer, as being in charge of the internet.

------
xpe
The article is paywalled (or at least gated).

~~~
errantmind
This extension is useful for bypassing sites that use 'article limits' :
[https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-
firefox](https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefox)

~~~
eganist
so is the web button under OP's link.

~~~
pazimzadeh
Still paywalled

------
StanDavis
Paywall

------
yawaramin
TP;DR?*

    
    
        * Too Paywalled**, Didn't Read
    
        ** Although for some articles one might legitimately say 'Toilet Paper, Didn't Read'

~~~
ErikAugust
[https://beta.trimread.com/articles/5241](https://beta.trimread.com/articles/5241)

