When people ask me why I use Safari, this kind of thing is (a big part of) why. I don't really need the obsessive configuration that Firefox or (to a lesser degree) Chrome users need, and I'm...
Since Apple introduced what it calls its Intelligent Tracking Prevention feature in September 2017, and with subsequent updates last year, advertisers have largely lost the ability to target people on Safari based on their browsing habits with cookies, the most commonly used technology for tracking.
When people ask me why I use Safari, this kind of thing is (a big part of) why. I don't really need the obsessive configuration that Firefox or (to a lesser degree) Chrome users need, and I'm happy to give up that flexibility as privacy becomes more important.
A Criteo spokeswoman said that by making the ad-blocking feature automatic in Safari, Apple “does not truly promote choice for the users of its browser.”
Uh huh. Sure they don't. They don't promote the choice that lets you exploit them for money. That's what you mean.
I’ve started to regularly use Firefox, and while there’s certainly some set up involved for my specific needs, I didn’t find it to be all that onerous. FF has also implied they are rolling out...
I’ve started to regularly use Firefox, and while there’s certainly some set up involved for my specific needs, I didn’t find it to be all that onerous.
FF has also implied they are rolling out features to new users, with retroactivation at a later date. Apple blindly enforces this for all new/latest OS users and that is why it’s caused such a ruckus in adtech (and for good reason!). Apple has the clout to make an unpopular decision and force everyone else to bend to it. FF is not in the same position, and so I understand why they follow suit more softly.
As a user, these are the right moves to make, and I’m skeptical Google will completely let go of their ability to track. Someday we may see privacy as the selling point of devices/software, but the past few breaches have proved that people don’t care about their information being out in the global public sphere. Perhaps they will care if it leads to large-scale identity theft, but I don’t actually hope for a world where that’s a necessary driver of progress.
Google's emphatically not in the position to relinquish their tracking; it's the core of their business. And I'm sure that Apple's focus on privacy is first a differentiator, a way to compete with...
Google's emphatically not in the position to relinquish their tracking; it's the core of their business. And I'm sure that Apple's focus on privacy is first a differentiator, a way to compete with Google, and second a value its executives actually have. And I'm absolutely okay with that as an Apple user. I may not like capitalism, but in this case I can do the capitalist thing and vote with my wallet for the company whose products (if not values) align with my (actual) values.
This is the line they take every time, "But don't you want all these wonderfully tailored ads?". No, no I don't, and you didn't give me much of choice before either.
Uh huh. Sure they don't. They don't promote the choice that lets you exploit them for money. That's what you mean.
This is the line they take every time, "But don't you want all these wonderfully tailored ads?".
No, no I don't, and you didn't give me much of choice before either.
If the ads were actually wonderfully tailored maybe. Instead I get a lot of creepy shit and leakage of my personal data all to serve me an ad for a pair of pants I already bought a week ago. Why?...
If the ads were actually wonderfully tailored maybe. Instead I get a lot of creepy shit and leakage of my personal data all to serve me an ad for a pair of pants I already bought a week ago. Why?
And let's not forget how this stuff ruins Christmas. When I was engagement ring shopping I had to take extreme steps to keep my wife from seeing engagement ring ads, like only browsing from my work computer or by phone on public wifi. What kind of silliness is this?
You seem to be asking for two contradictory things here. You want tailored ads, but you also want non-tailored ads so you can keep surprises from people. Or am I misunderstanding something here?...
You seem to be asking for two contradictory things here. You want tailored ads, but you also want non-tailored ads so you can keep surprises from people. Or am I misunderstanding something here? You always seem to be pretty reasonable so I'm going to assume I'm missing something.
It's a general complaint about bad tailoring. Most of the issue is they're over specified to the point where they're only telling me about things I'm already aware of and interested in. It's also...
It's a general complaint about bad tailoring. Most of the issue is they're over specified to the point where they're only telling me about things I'm already aware of and interested in. It's also bad tailoring to show my wife ads based on my browsing habits because we happen to use the same WiFi network. That's badly tailored because your girlfriend is presumably not the target market for her own engagement ring, but all they know is "this IP looked at diamond rings, so spam the IP with diamond ring ads!" They just seem to be driven by vague correlations rather than any real logic around who would want to see this and why or what are the implications of showing people ads in this way? This goes to even darker places, where you might end up showing depressed people ads for gun stores or casinos.
The only actual effective ad tailoring I've seen ends up being scummy, where you buy slots for your competitors' search terms so you can out-compete them on placement when people are directly searching for them. Everything else I don't actually see much utility that they couldn't have gotten by extrapolating based on what sorts of people I follow or what my general interests are. Microtargetting me based on what links I click on in articles is yielding them nothing of value.
Firefox doesn't have any of the integration with the operating system that Safari does, it doesn't feel native (as I've commented elsewhere), and it doesn't support things like content blockers...
Firefox doesn't have any of the integration with the operating system that Safari does, it doesn't feel native (as I've commented elsewhere), and it doesn't support things like content blockers for blocking ads / enhancing privacy, among other things. I have no reason to switch browsers when what I'm using now has been doing everything I want for years and I'm very happy with it.
Wait what how does firefox not support content blockers? It was chrome that changed the API's to the deficit of u-block origin and other good blockers. I tried installing ad blockers on safari and...
Wait what how does firefox not support content blockers?
It was chrome that changed the API's to the deficit of u-block origin and other good blockers.
I tried installing ad blockers on safari and couldn't get it to work well, so I switched to chrome at the time.
In 2017 I think was last I tried safari, now I mainly use firefox.
I don't mean ad blockers. I mean content blockers. They're a Safari-specific technology that work differently from the typical ad blocker in that they properly respect privacy by not letting the...
I don't mean ad blockers. I mean content blockers. They're a Safari-specific technology that work differently from the typical ad blocker in that they properly respect privacy by not letting the extension know the content you're looking at or the site, and they also have better performance. 2017 Safari definitely supported content blockers.
Am I supposed to feel bad for the advertising companies? Good on Apple. I give them a hard time when they preach privacy and go against it with things like their stance on China but they should...
Am I supposed to feel bad for the advertising companies?
Good on Apple. I give them a hard time when they preach privacy and go against it with things like their stance on China but they should get credit for what they do right.
When people ask me why I use Safari, this kind of thing is (a big part of) why. I don't really need the obsessive configuration that Firefox or (to a lesser degree) Chrome users need, and I'm happy to give up that flexibility as privacy becomes more important.
Uh huh. Sure they don't. They don't promote the choice that lets you exploit them for money. That's what you mean.
I’ve started to regularly use Firefox, and while there’s certainly some set up involved for my specific needs, I didn’t find it to be all that onerous.
FF has also implied they are rolling out features to new users, with retroactivation at a later date. Apple blindly enforces this for all new/latest OS users and that is why it’s caused such a ruckus in adtech (and for good reason!). Apple has the clout to make an unpopular decision and force everyone else to bend to it. FF is not in the same position, and so I understand why they follow suit more softly.
As a user, these are the right moves to make, and I’m skeptical Google will completely let go of their ability to track. Someday we may see privacy as the selling point of devices/software, but the past few breaches have proved that people don’t care about their information being out in the global public sphere. Perhaps they will care if it leads to large-scale identity theft, but I don’t actually hope for a world where that’s a necessary driver of progress.
Google's emphatically not in the position to relinquish their tracking; it's the core of their business. And I'm sure that Apple's focus on privacy is first a differentiator, a way to compete with Google, and second a value its executives actually have. And I'm absolutely okay with that as an Apple user. I may not like capitalism, but in this case I can do the capitalist thing and vote with my wallet for the company whose products (if not values) align with my (actual) values.
This is the line they take every time, "But don't you want all these wonderfully tailored ads?".
No, no I don't, and you didn't give me much of choice before either.
If the ads were actually wonderfully tailored maybe. Instead I get a lot of creepy shit and leakage of my personal data all to serve me an ad for a pair of pants I already bought a week ago. Why?
And let's not forget how this stuff ruins Christmas. When I was engagement ring shopping I had to take extreme steps to keep my wife from seeing engagement ring ads, like only browsing from my work computer or by phone on public wifi. What kind of silliness is this?
You seem to be asking for two contradictory things here. You want tailored ads, but you also want non-tailored ads so you can keep surprises from people. Or am I misunderstanding something here? You always seem to be pretty reasonable so I'm going to assume I'm missing something.
It's a general complaint about bad tailoring. Most of the issue is they're over specified to the point where they're only telling me about things I'm already aware of and interested in. It's also bad tailoring to show my wife ads based on my browsing habits because we happen to use the same WiFi network. That's badly tailored because your girlfriend is presumably not the target market for her own engagement ring, but all they know is "this IP looked at diamond rings, so spam the IP with diamond ring ads!" They just seem to be driven by vague correlations rather than any real logic around who would want to see this and why or what are the implications of showing people ads in this way? This goes to even darker places, where you might end up showing depressed people ads for gun stores or casinos.
The only actual effective ad tailoring I've seen ends up being scummy, where you buy slots for your competitors' search terms so you can out-compete them on placement when people are directly searching for them. Everything else I don't actually see much utility that they couldn't have gotten by extrapolating based on what sorts of people I follow or what my general interests are. Microtargetting me based on what links I click on in articles is yielding them nothing of value.
Firefox doesn't have any of the integration with the operating system that Safari does, it doesn't feel native (as I've commented elsewhere), and it doesn't support things like content blockers for blocking ads / enhancing privacy, among other things. I have no reason to switch browsers when what I'm using now has been doing everything I want for years and I'm very happy with it.
Wait what how does firefox not support content blockers?
It was chrome that changed the API's to the deficit of u-block origin and other good blockers.
I tried installing ad blockers on safari and couldn't get it to work well, so I switched to chrome at the time.
In 2017 I think was last I tried safari, now I mainly use firefox.
I don't mean ad blockers. I mean content blockers. They're a Safari-specific technology that work differently from the typical ad blocker in that they properly respect privacy by not letting the extension know the content you're looking at or the site, and they also have better performance. 2017 Safari definitely supported content blockers.
This is awesome news :)
Am I supposed to feel bad for the advertising companies?
Good on Apple. I give them a hard time when they preach privacy and go against it with things like their stance on China but they should get credit for what they do right.
Apologies for the soft paywall. Entering any email address should get you to the article.
They added a paywall bypass for Hacker News (as they've been doing pretty often), so I edited that in now.
Thanks!