Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I really don't understand why this is a bad practice. I know it is horrifying to give your web history to total stranger for god knows what purposes they will use. But going extra mile to implement privacy so that no site/some sites could talk behind your back (looking at you firefox multi account containers) seems like an equally horrific act that cripples websites not ad providers.

When I used these kind of precautions I saw that analytics got no access and I believe most of the site-owners need these information to operate/develop their sites and it seems like a lot of work to implement those in-site tracking features yourself. Or I started to see random ads all over the place like early 2000s, I do enjoy targeted ads because when I am looking for something those ads could help a lot, only if there is a way to stop them after I made a purchase though.

So, if anyone could simply explain why this is SO bad or send me to correct discussion (I do believe these matters discussed previously a lot).




Because there is no consent.

If I were to start following you whenever you are going anywhere, sit next to you whereever I can, and write down as much about your life as I can, without asking you for permission first, would you also agree that that would be acceptable if I claimed that I need that information to operate or develop my business?

Also, obviously, noone "needs" that information, that's just bullshit. It may sometimes be helpful, but that doesn't mean you need it--just as any other business might be able to learn something from surveilling my non-online life, but that doesn't make it a need for them to spy on me, especially without my consent.

Whether you like targeted advertising is completely irrelevant, as noone is telling you that you may not agree to being spied on. That's like saying that there is nothing wrong with forcing everyone to walk around naked because some people enjoy appearing in porn.


> it seems like a lot of work to implement those in-site tracking features yourself

Aren't there libraries/frameworks/products for exactly this? E.g., when I google "website tracking framework" amplitude.com is top ad result, and it seems to cover the business uses. And http://google.github.io/tracing-framework/ is the first non-ad result, which seems to cover the legitimate technical uses.

> I believe most of the site-owners need these information to operate/develop their sites

Can you give an example of a piece of user-relevant functionality that cannot be implemented without Google Analytics?

IME especially Google Analytics is mostly useful for business reasons, not technical reasons.

It's certainly fair to say that it's difficult to operate a profitable web business without Google Analytics. But that's a very different claim. And the difference is important because...

> So, if anyone could simply explain why this is SO bad or send me to correct discussion

Legitimate customer-business relationships should always involve informed consent. Cookie blockers and Firefox containers provide the technical tools that enable me to make an informed decision about whether to use your site. Without those technical mechanisms, it's very difficult for me to constantly monitor whether you are tracking me.

You/Google are free to deny me access to your products/content if I choose not to be tracked. But I should be allowed to make an informed decision about whether to use your site. The tools you're complaining about enable that informed decision.


As you've said in today's world it is difficult to operate a 'free' web-service without ads and ad-tracking, and I always thought since I am using their service I could give my data for ads since their business depends on it. But after thorough research about tracking I agree with you that these decisions must be informed and if this is not acceptable, either I should be denied service or the business model should be changed (after enough users like you and now I chose not to be tracked, I believe it will change)


> "I do enjoy targeted ads because when I am looking for something those ads could help a lot"

You said could instead of do. Have they ever actually? Do you really click on ads? I don't think I've ever encountered somebody who admits to willingly clicking on ads. The only ad clickers I've seen are people who do it by accident or people who don't realize they're clicking on an ad (usually older folk with poor computer skills.)


I occasionally click the ads when I am shopping online, by 'could' I meant just seeing (not clicking) another options/alternatives of the same type of product helps.


Clicked on multiple ads for a multitude of reasons in the course of the last 38 years. I'd be surprised if I'm the only one in here.


What were you clicking on in 1980?




Applications are open for YC Winter 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: