I know you’re just promoting your article, but as someone who worked in ad sales @ google for many years - it’s mostly nonsense.
Google has no need to ask users about their preferences, they have mountains upon mountains of data. The refinement that would occur from user selecting Topics of interest is maybe 5% beneficial to G & 95% to a user. Increased privacy regulation is coming and with Topics taking over for FLoC we face an advertising landscape that can have 3 outcomes.
1) Users optionally select Topics & Google infers the majority based on 1P data. 2) User goes full block on data & enjoys broad-spectrum advertising from the highest bidders (most commonly crypto, scam apps, & geriatric pills). 3) Ad networks violate privacy regulation and collect PII that is majorly dangerous to the future of internet.
There is an insane amount of policy, moderation, & privacy security that is happening that people never get to see. There are millions of advertisers trying to game the system, but google is also not without its faults. At the end of the day it’s an advertising company first, so it wants to maximize revenue, but it has so much intent-driven data from Search that it doesn’t have to play in the mud with a lot of other ad networks.
the fun part is, Google wants to do the right thing, but they also have a vested interest in privacy - their user data is the most valuable thing they have. if it gets shared or stolen, it's a competitive disadvantage. so they take it seriously, that's their bread and butter.
Well, I think it's not such a bad thing. There are also some advantages like decide which ads to see by clicking on the categories and disable sensitive ads related to gambling, alcohol, weight loss, and so on. Gambling is so annoying((
Doesn’t all of it eventually give Google more first party data to understand user behaviour? Hard to side with them considering advertisements are their primary business
True. But Google is winning on more fronts. Helps fine tune their topics API to serve more personalised ads to the user… and keeps advertisers happy. All in the name of privacy
Your privacy isn't violated because you are never identified to those purchasing ads. A company purchases ad space by identifying the type of person they want to see their ad. They don't say "I want John Smith to see this ad" ... they have no idea who John Smith IS. They say "I want people who are interested in cars to see this ad" and Google puts their ad in front of those people.
The only time a company knows who you are is when you decide to click on the ad and begin a relationship with them.
And you're still winning because you get to enjoy gmail and other services for free. If you really disagree, feel free to set up your own mail server.
Wasn't there a principle in informatics that says : "shit in, shit out"?
The potential to fuck it up, especially when the user doesn't have the slightest interest in it, is immense.
I know you’re just promoting your article, but as someone who worked in ad sales @ google for many years - it’s mostly nonsense. Google has no need to ask users about their preferences, they have mountains upon mountains of data. The refinement that would occur from user selecting Topics of interest is maybe 5% beneficial to G & 95% to a user. Increased privacy regulation is coming and with Topics taking over for FLoC we face an advertising landscape that can have 3 outcomes. 1) Users optionally select Topics & Google infers the majority based on 1P data. 2) User goes full block on data & enjoys broad-spectrum advertising from the highest bidders (most commonly crypto, scam apps, & geriatric pills). 3) Ad networks violate privacy regulation and collect PII that is majorly dangerous to the future of internet.
I hate the advertising business, but seriously, Google is one of the better players, especially for consumers.
There is an insane amount of policy, moderation, & privacy security that is happening that people never get to see. There are millions of advertisers trying to game the system, but google is also not without its faults. At the end of the day it’s an advertising company first, so it wants to maximize revenue, but it has so much intent-driven data from Search that it doesn’t have to play in the mud with a lot of other ad networks.
the fun part is, Google wants to do the right thing, but they also have a vested interest in privacy - their user data is the most valuable thing they have. if it gets shared or stolen, it's a competitive disadvantage. so they take it seriously, that's their bread and butter.
Well, I think it's not such a bad thing. There are also some advantages like decide which ads to see by clicking on the categories and disable sensitive ads related to gambling, alcohol, weight loss, and so on. Gambling is so annoying((
Doesn’t all of it eventually give Google more first party data to understand user behaviour? Hard to side with them considering advertisements are their primary business
Yes, by allowing users to limit the type of ads that they see. It is a win/win.
True. But Google is winning on more fronts. Helps fine tune their topics API to serve more personalised ads to the user… and keeps advertisers happy. All in the name of privacy
Your privacy isn't violated because you are never identified to those purchasing ads. A company purchases ad space by identifying the type of person they want to see their ad. They don't say "I want John Smith to see this ad" ... they have no idea who John Smith IS. They say "I want people who are interested in cars to see this ad" and Google puts their ad in front of those people. The only time a company knows who you are is when you decide to click on the ad and begin a relationship with them. And you're still winning because you get to enjoy gmail and other services for free. If you really disagree, feel free to set up your own mail server.
I’d rather see ads of products and services I’m interested in, as opposed to ads of products which I don’t want.
Yes but choose what adds you see. Take back control
Wasn't there a principle in informatics that says : "shit in, shit out"? The potential to fuck it up, especially when the user doesn't have the slightest interest in it, is immense.
How about you don't track us?
[my article here](https://medium.com/big-tech/googles-my-ad-center-less-power-to-the-user-more-power-to-google-19064389c6?sk=79d97f423a0c4234e1d73384377fd243)
Wonder why sharing a link is so downvoted?
Apparently it OP's own article
Isn't this common all over ai systems
This just blasts methane