Google Chrome pushes browser history-based ad targeting
www.theregister.com
YMMV, based on where you are

Google enables advertisers a look into your browsing history…

  • cyd@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1512·
    1 year ago

    “Enhanced Ad Privacy.” That’s the technology that, unless switched off, allows websites to target the user with adverts tuned to their online activities

    That’s some Orwellian shit right there.

    • Ricaz@lemmy.mlEnglish
      17104·
      1 year ago

      This is how the internet has worked since forever. At least for Chrome it’s opt-in, and they’re very clear about what is shared.

      Edit: apparently it’s only opt-in in Europe so I offer my condolences

      • Woedenaz@lemm.eeEnglish
        601·
        1 year ago

        It’s not opt-in. These settings are automatically set to be turned on unless you intentionally turn them off. So they’re opt-out by definition.

        • Ricaz@lemmy.mlEnglish
          67·
          1 year ago

          It is most definitely opt-in for me. It popped up and said “would you like to enable this?”, explaining what would be shared and why. It was not enabled automatically. That’s opt-in if you ask me.

          • Woedenaz@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            I got the pop-up on desktop chrome yesterday and I had to intentionally go to the settings and turn them off.

            Maybe it’s different on mobile chrome? I don’t know but it was absolutely opt-out on desktop.

            I use Firefox as my main browser but work requires I use chrome for some stupid bullshit. Otherwise I wouldn’t touch the browser at all.

            • Ricaz@lemmy.mlEnglish
              2·
              1 year ago

              So your region does not have laws prevent them from automatically enabling it.

              • Ricaz@lemmy.mlEnglish
                1·
                1 year ago

                No… It pops up and asks you very clearly if you want to enable it. It also shows what it is, what’s being tracked, and who the information is shared with.

                • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ll have to take a look later but I specifically remember the options being auto selected. So you have to go to the options and uncheck them when that pop up comes up. That would be saying the default option would be for it to be on. So you would have to opt out of the changes. Opt in would be default option set to off.

                  Were you on a computer, or a phone. Also are you in Europe? I have seen some users say that in the U.S. it is checked by default (where I am at) and some users in Europe claim it is unchecked by default there.

      • TheEntity@kbin.social
        11·
        1 year ago

        I doubt this “opt-in” would replace the already existing tracking. It being opt-in is pointless since at very best it doesn’t change anything.

        • dustyData@lemmy.worldEnglish
          91·
          1 year ago

          It’s opt-out. It’s on by default in Chrome as they claim it is the safest option, and you have to turn it off so it stops sending some data to Google. I think only in Europe it’s opt-in, because only Europe enforces their citizens rights to not have their privacy raped by US companies in the name of security.

          • Ricaz@lemmy.mlEnglish
            51·
            1 year ago

            I live in Europe so maybe that’s why it asked me if I wanted to enable it.

      • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        5·
        1 year ago

        That’s how bad online services and nonfree programs was working since forever. The Internet is just sending the stuff your computer want to send.

        • Ricaz@lemmy.mlEnglish
          11·
          1 year ago

          Tracking cookies have been a thing for literally decades.

    • glad_cat@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      30·
      1 year ago

      I may be cursed but I have never experienced any slowdown with Firefox. I never noticed the appeal of Chrome, but have I only used it twice in my life…

      • ohlaph@lemmy.worldEnglish
        101·
        1 year ago

        Firefox felt pretty bloated for me back in 2005-2010 or so, they have greatly improved it though and I haven’t noticed a difference in performance on either Chrome or Firefox.

      • tim-clark@kbin.social
        41·
        1 year ago

        I use a macbook for work. Chrome is ridiculously buggy and sucking every bit of memory. Firefox is almost as bad. Chrome is really bad when using more than 1 tab. Firefox has rendering issues with jira and git. Chrome compelling locks up when using meet, Firefox is slightly better.

        In my opinion all browsers have sucked since 2015. Slow, unresponsive, rendering issues, resource hogs. Overall the browser experience has led me to use the internet less and less. It is not the privacy, it is the basic functionality is not working consistently.

        • SimplePhysics@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          21·
          1 year ago

          Damn, how old is that MacBook? I think you should ask for a hardware upgrade, because both Chromium based browsers and Firefox don’t use too much resources and run smoothly on the newer models. I can’t say that Chrome isn’t buggy, as I barely use it, but I have never encountered a Firefox bug on any of my devices.

            • SimplePhysics@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              macOS is a desktop OS. It has a terminal, it lets you download that sketchy .app file from a random website, and it allows browsers to use their own engines. So, not too different from Windows or Linux.

              You are correct for iOS and iPadOS though. They must use the WebKit rendering engine. All browsers on those are just Safari reskins.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        It works really well on mobile, that’s just about all the appeal I can find. Some sites are a bit glitchy on Firefox, but it’s really rare. I keep it around for those occasions. On PC it’s just Firefox and Edge (cuz work).

    • Zikeji@programming.devEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      Every day a new article comes out that slowly convinces me to switch. Chrome’s profile switcher was light years ahead of Firefox last I checked, but I’m going to have to check again and see if that’s still the case and if so, what I can do to cope.

        • Zikeji@programming.devEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          I’ll have to check, a cursory look at the documentation definitely makes them seem viable. Those definitely weren’t a thing last I checked lol. As for the use case, I have a profile for job 1, 2, personal, and personal 2 (2 being a separate Google account for it’s collaborative stuff).

          For the most part it should do the trick. I dislike the branding for Mozilla VPN, but I see in the screenshots I can set custom proxy settings which will be nice.

          As one of my profiles has a unique set of bookmarks and unique extensions, I’d probably be able to use the containers to substitute what I’m using 3 profiles for right now, and keep a separate profile for the job with unique extensions.

          Thanks! Will definitely start migrating stuff over and seeing how it is. If I can still self host the sync backend I’ll do that as well.

    • kaitco@lemmy.worldEnglish
      28·
      1 year ago

      I’ve never left Firefox. Through their redesigns and restructure of available add-ons, Firefox has always been the better option because they’ve always been focused on user options and user privacy.

      "I don’t want my browser keeping track of my browsing history to help serve me ads, and I definitely don’t want my browser sharing any function of my browsing history with every random website I visit.”

      Then why were you using Chrome in the first place?? This feels very much like “‘I never thought the leopards would eat my face,’ says the head of the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party.”

      Every single product offered by Google is meant as an ad delivery method to increase their balance sheet. I’m honestly shocked by the people who are shocked when Google takes steps that are meant to increase ad delivery when that’s always been Google’s ultimate goal.

      • the_medium_kahuna@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Firefox + uBlock Origin is a godsend. Shout outs also go to DuckDuckGo and the Privacy Badger add-on

        Fwiw, my experience with Firefox has been so good that I’ve started using Pocket and Thunderbird as well (both also developed by Mozilla). There’s a bit of a learning curve, but resources are easily found online, and the privacy and customization benefits easily outweigh the hiccups, imo

      • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.worldEnglish
        33·
        1 year ago

        If you’re frustrated with Firefox you could give Brave Browser a try. The devs forked off of Chromium and removed all of the tracking that Google wants in there. It comes pre-loaded with all of the Ad-blocking features I use in Firefox as well, so no extensions needed for that. Also you’ll still be able to use the Chromecast feature if you really want to go in and re-enable it.

        The only thing you’ll want to do is to switch the Homepage off and probably disable the icon at the top for enrolling in their ad rewards program (which handles the problems that a lot of users here have with Brave).

    • Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.mlEnglish
      141·
      1 year ago

      Any organization that feels the need to outright claim without being asked that they’re not evil are 100% projecting and are evil.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.caEnglish
        12·
        1 year ago

        I think they honestly weren’t, back in those days, or at least trying not to be.

        Now google is a fully fledged advertising and marketing company

        I already dumped google search in favor of DuckDuckGo years ago which gives objectively better results. Google search has been overrun with SEO spam since years ago

        I’m getting rid of chrome, then of google drive, then what more… Google maps is a big one to drop too but it’s so nice.

        It sucks that a company builds good software and then just abuses the crap out of it but this is why we have open source!

        Lastly I’ll need to drop google from my Android phone, somehow.

  • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.eeEnglish
    833·
    1 year ago

    This was overwhelming rejected by everyone, including Microsoft, Mozilla, Safari, and others. It’s universally disliked, and Google knows this, but they intentionally know they’re abusing their monopoly to push anti-consumer bullshit.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      I opened the browser at the library to print a pre employment drug screen form today. The browser had a pop up asking to review settings, it looked like you could tell them not to use ads this way, but damn I wish I would have read it now. Not my computer and it reboots to clear the profile when you “log out” so I didnt spend the time

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    44·
    1 year ago

    I think I’ll just invite Google to come get my dna, set up cameras everywhere, and install a microchip in my brain. Then I can be done with this slow-walk of privacy invasion.

    • Kool_Newt@lemm.eeEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      I got the Google Suppository Health Monitor, I just stick it in my butt and nano bots flood my body looking for things to advertise to me about.

    • Graphy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      1 year ago

      I feel like people in general give google too big of a pass all the time. I feel like I read apple hate every second while people somehow distinguish android from google.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      Ikr? Google openly became the cartoonishly evil overlord, so much so it basically entered pop culture as such (Meta, Apple, MS, Amazon, etc also all the same).

      And installing either Firefox or Chrome is exactly the same for the user, usage too. But no, let the poor megacorp have some more data so they can sell us some more direct ads and even more indirect ads that aren’t even labeled as such (yet Alphabet profits from that) … and become even more powerful influencing everyones lives, legislation, etc

      I hated being the go-to guy for tech support in my family, but at least I get to jam open sauce things everywhere. They are never happy with any changes, but after a few days nobody remembers Microsoft & co, so everyone is really happy with things like Linux, Firefox (mobile too!), LibreOffice, Thunderbird, Signal, FairEmail & other open android apps, etc

    • kescusay@lemmy.worldEnglish
      22·
      1 year ago

      That’s what people don’t understand. Google’s actual customers are advertisers, just like with broadcast television. The deal you make with Google is that they’ll give you all sorts of “free” services and software, and in return, you’ll see ads.

      And there’s nothing inherently wrong with that model. You get what you want, Google gets what they want, and advertisers pay for it all in the hopes that you’ll like whatever they’re selling and buy it.

      You can always stop using free services and pay for them directly instead, cutting the advertisers out. Or use free services from non-profits and open-source software.

      But the problem is that it’s also in Google’s best interests to make that as difficult as possible. To make avoiding their data-consumption damn near impossible. Collecting, comparing, collating, and indexing data is literally what they’re the best in the world at. And they have their methods of getting it everywhere.

      A broadcaster can’t stop you from turning off the TV or muting it during ads. If they could, they certainly would. (Thanks, laissez-faire capitalism!) But they’re not serving the ads AND providing the TV itself.

      Google is both the broadcaster and the TV manufacturer in this analogy. They’re saying, “Here’s a free TV. Isn’t it nice? And it’ll help us give you extremely targeted and personalized ads. Hope you don’t mind that we’ve made it hard to mute, and the TV never actually turns all the way off. And sure, it’s got a camera and microphone, but what did you expect? It’s free!”

  • treefrog@lemm.eeEnglish
    301·
    1 year ago

    Not my browser history. I use private browsing… and Firefox!

  • dan1101@lemm.eeEnglish
    312·
    1 year ago

    Chrome is like Facebook, zero respect for privacy. Anything you do with Chrome can and will be used. From day one Chrome has fed all your browsing activity to their index bot. After your browsed a URL, shortly after googlebot crawled that site.

  • Texas_Hangover@lemm.eeEnglish
    302·
    1 year ago

    Got this today, I have to use chrome for a couple things every month, and they conveniently turned on all their tracking and ads and bullshit. Had to turn all that crap off again. Not that they’d glean any useful information from my paltry chrome usage, but it still pisses me off.

    • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
      410·
      1 year ago

      If someone is swayed by a political advertisement, they are, by definition, consuming content they desire.

      Goal should be to change what those people desire rather than fight against them consuming ads/media.

      • jemorgan@lemm.eeEnglish
        61·
        1 year ago

        If someone is swayed by instructions to kill themselves, they are, be definition, consuming content they desire.

        That’s a bad argument. Marketing is one thing, manipulation is totally different.

        There’s nothing specifically wrong with marketing in general, but marketers with access to enormous amounts of private information blur the line between advertising and manipulation. Using people’s private information to each individual exactly what they want to hear about a candidate without regard to the truth is absolutely something that we should be concerned about.

        • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
          16·
          1 year ago

          If you can be manipulated by a targeted ad you were already into that.

          No normal person stumbles across Andrew Tate on YouTube due to an algorithm and thinks, “This man is my savior.”

          • jemorgan@lemm.eeEnglish
            11·
            1 year ago

            You’ve got a naive definition of ‘normal’.

            I’d say that the vast majority of people who stumble across a curated Andrew Tate clip and think that the very carefully selected soundbite resonates with them are “normal.”

            That’s the issue with deeply personalized targeted marketing. People get presented with a representation of something that isn’t accurate. Instead, it’s tightly tailored to be agreeable, which can result in “normal” people forming positive sentiments towards things that they’d absolutely disagree with if they were presented with a truthful representation.

            • SCB@lemmy.worldEnglish
              12·
              1 year ago

              No man I’d say you are the one with the skewed definition of “normal”

              I know 0 people who would buy into that dudes horseshit