The privacy nightmare of browser fingerprinting

It's a better explanation that I can provide.

These will still help against the masses of dumb actors flooding your stuff.

But yes, I always thought some form of network syndication would emerge on the Web, where creators could register for their share of aggregated periodic payments made by users.

Still not sure why that's not a thing. I would pay $50/month to a syndicate in return for never having to deal with paywalls on any sites affiliated with them. But only as long as the vast majority of sites participated, and that is probably the showstopper, I guess. We'd end up paying 20 different 'syndicates' for absolutely no good reason, just as we now have to deal with 20 different streaming services.

Also wonder if it will really work out, i open too many articles that are pretty bad when you start reading them. So i quit after 1 or 2 paragraphs.

Now if you get the first 2 paragraphs for free, contents writers will start to optimize for good first 2 paragraphs, and afterwards quality will drop. Also, many blog posts or news articles don't have more than 2 paragraphs of good content.

Except in practice we see the opposite.

There's something interesting going on with companies when they want to get paid directly versus by ads: they demand 3x - 4x or more for subscriptions or pay per view versus what they make from ads.

Easiest place to see this is ad supported non-linear TV in the years you could get without ads, or with ads. You pay significantly more to not see the ads, than they make from the ads.

Perhaps this is justified because ad-free subscriptions reduce the audience size for ad buys, but when you look at the numbers watching with ads versus paying, it wouldn't seem like the "no ads" buyers make a dent in whatever pricing tier.

In the 90s when we were young and naive, we imagined a library card model, with a library fee and then you have fractions of a cent cost to read a post, and using (hand waving) technology to uncouple viewing history from payables to content creators. That, or the British TV license model, an Internet license of some kind.

It's curious to me the ad networks haven't gotten together to preemptively offer this. Arguably Brave tried, but from an adversarial (to the ad companies) stance. It would work better from the inside with a simple regulation: if you serve ads for ad-supported content, you have to participate in the library card system at CPM rates no greater than you receive for ads to skip the ads for card holders.

it takes a lot of $0.10-$0.25 views to make up for the loss of a $5/month recurring revenue stream that might last for years.

It is a shame that this feature gets lumped together with claims of crypto scams, and similar nonsense. Yet this is precisely the right model that could work at scale to eliminate the advertising middleman, and make the web a safer and more enjoyable experience for everyone.

Yes, but only after viewing, of else I'd pay for "editorial" or AI generated slop which would be generated like link farms pointing to Amazon etc.

And that's the chicken-and-egg problem ...

In theory that could be resolved by registering for free at reputable sites and then paying per view with micropayments. Or by a scheme where one would register and only pay when I actually did read stuff, not with the currently en-vogue monthly fee for each and every site.

I'd venture to say contextual advertising would be more effective than whatever we've been trying to squeeze out of fingerprinting etc. All this supposed "data" they are gathering feels like a scam perpetuated by ad companies about how important it is to the people who buy ads. It's not.

Even Facebook and Instagram, which pretty much should know you to a tee is completely ineffectual at advertising to me - like at all.

Targeted ads concentrate control over the market into a few players, which can do things like acquire competitors or run them out of business with loss leaders.

With AI, the supply of ad real estate will go to infinity, so the only thing that will matter is the quality of the places the ads run.

This would be a good time to ban targeted advertising, or for the content producers to form a cartel that only purchases contextual ads.

That cartel will probably be even worse than what we have now, since it’s going to be 2-3 mega conglomerates like Disney, and they already have handed editorial control over to the White House.

Hopefully the invisible hand of capitalism will somehow fix this.

Nor, generally, should it. Sitting down one or two Saturday afternoons a month to write a blog post shouldn't be generating the income of a FTE.

Should people receive meaningful income for writing a blog post every once in a while?

I feel like that's the real question and not everyone agrees on the answer

> we would be better off with free content like on the internet of old

Well as someone who was there you used to need meaningful income to use the Internet of old. Nowadays everyone needs the Internet and it's a pretty big expense in most peoples' budget, and I think that's why so many people are willing to try something at it,

I figure if you just gave everyone meaningful income we could have that again

I wrote a longer post on this[0] but to save you the click I will state the biggest problem from a privacy point of view - if you think privacy is bad now with ads imagine how much worse it would be with a payment processor knowing your every click.

Yes, I know about certain cryptocurrencies that maintain privacy, they are a non-starter for micropayments for different reasons.

Even if a magically technical solution to privacy were to emerge there is nothing more valuable than information about paying customers and sites would use browser fingerprinting anyway.

[0] https://sheep.horse/2024/11/on_micropayments.html

If you don’t want to be tracked, you shouldn’t be, but how could it not? At a very simple level, an ad targeted towards a 50 year old woman isn’t going to be the same ad to show a 14 year old boy. Different people like different things and ads targeting you as an advertising profile are going to be better than ones that aren’t. You may not like the targeting and think it's invasive, because it is, but let's not pretend the tracking doesn't do something.

Sure even with the gatekeeper test you can’t be sure it’s built against only the claimed code but it does guarantee:

1) the binary hasn’t been modified since it was signed 2) the binary was signed by somebody in possession of the private key 3) there is some measure of identification via Apple on who or what signed the binary 4) somebody was willing to fork over $99 to sign the binary

It’s not perfect security by any means but it is something. Otherwise the binary you are running might as well have come from some sketchy email attachment. And fuck that. Why would I want that on my machine?

I get that the $99 might be a hurdle for “non-organized open source” (ie most open source… doesn’t have a non-profit entity to take up the expense and credential management, etc…)… and there are probably ways apple could make it easier for such “collectives”… but ultimately I’d argue that signed binaries are good for everybody. While imperfect, they provide some form of traceability and accountability.

However, you might also want to access HTTP and HTML, and to do so without needing to load fonts, pictures, etc; you might use a web browser that omits many of these features. However, it also can result in some problems; there are a few ways to work around some of these, such as adding your own scripts to handle some services, adding proxy services for handling some services (although some of these can use other protocols such as Gemini), and/or using the HTML/CSS commands in other ways (e.g. using ARIA to decide the formatting rather than using CSS). However, there are other issues, e.g. if the web page you download includes more junk than the actual main text.

Lets see what he says on the subject.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html

You can think of all sorts of questions and answers like this, and when you combine with the assumptions and answers from previous answers you can make even more assumptions. They won't always be correct, but you don't have to be "perfect", depending on your use-case. For example for advertising purposes assumptions(even if incorrect) can still go a long way.

There is a reason Target got sooo good at identifying pregnant women[0] before the women knew they were pregnant that they creeped out women, and had to pull back what they did with that information. This was like a decade or more ago. It's only gotten more accurate since then.

0: one example from 2012: https://techland.time.com/2012/02/17/how-target-knew-a-high-...

The goal of these decision trees is to have as few questions that divide the group in two balanced halves (and also recursively).

If you imagine a binary tree with questions in each internal node, and in each leaf there is a person. You want the height of the tree to be minimized.

In this case, it was often an interesting exercise in bias as well. "Woman?" would usually single out 1-2 persons out of the 15, so it was a terrible question. It was CompSci after all. "Long hair?", lumping women and metal heads into one group would often split it into half and half. That was much better, and then spurred creative thoughts like travel distance, or bus stations.

A general "show me no ads" solution is not my preference.

I do not have those problem addictions. Of course I am going to comparison shop for any large purchases. I am good enough about controlling spending that excess junk isn't one of my problems.

But what I do have a problem with is coming up with creative ideas for people in my life. So, for example, I would have never thought to look for https://www.zazzle.com/cup_equation_love-168099175298227864. But I'm very glad that someone out there knew enough about me to guess that this might be an item that I'd like. And my wife liked the cup a whole lot.

Does this happen often? No. But I'm perfectly happy to pay a premium for a product when an advertiser gets it right.