Meanwhile, attempts like Mozilla’s Privacy-Preserving Attribution to allow for showing that an advertising campaign is effective without the granular, per-user tracking are rejected by the community, meaning that the situation never improves in even a small way.
I’d imagine that making it a user choice gets around some of the regulatory hurdles in some way. I can see them making a popup in the future to not use third-party cookies anymore (or partition per site them like Firefox does) but then they can say that it’s not Google making these changes, it’s the user making that choice. If you’re right that there’s few that would answer yes, then it gets them the same effective result for most users without being seen to force a change on their competitors in the ad industry.
What’s the UK CMA going to do, argue that users shouldn’t be given choices about how they are tracked or how their own browser operates?
Looking at it most favorably, if they ever want to not be dependent on Google, they need revenue to replace what they get from Google and like it or not much of the money online comes from advertising. If they can find a way to get that money without being totally invasive on privacy, that’s still better than their current position.
I’m pretty sure that people were unhappy because it was opt-out at first. Now that bridging is opt-in, I don’t think most people have a problem with it and I’ve seen a number of posts from both sides of the bridge so it seems to be working.
That’s true. I know they did increase the number of filters from the initial amount but they really should just make it effectively infinite.
As long as that extension developer can be trusted to have access to read and modify the data of any site you load and to not sell the extension (and its userbase) for a quick buck (see Hover Zoom+ for an example of how much they’re willing to offer, as recently as today).
There are definitely trade-offs between the permissions allowed in V2 versus V3. It really depends on where you think the main threat is (websites and online tracking versus extension developers).
I don’t propose we break the laws, I propose we change them.
For me it’s not boot licking but recognizing that IA made a huge unforced error that may cost us all not just that digital lending program but stuff like the Wayback Machine and all the other good projects the IA runs.
The Internet Archive refused to follow industry standards for ebook licensing, because they aren’t a library.
It’s worse than that. They did use “Controlled Digital Lending” to limit the number of people who can access a book at one time to something resembling the number of physical books that they had. And then they turned that restriction off because of the pandemic. There is no pandemic exception to copyright laws, even if that would make sense from a public health perspective to prevent people from having unnecessary contact at libraries. They screwed themselves and I can only hope that the Wayback Machine archives get a home somewhere else if they do go under.
Laws can very well be wrong, in a moral sense, and quite a few of them still in existence today are, but trying to argue that in court is usually a bad idea.
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lbvggjmzovq/internetarchive.pdf
[IA] professes to perform the traditional function of a library by lending only limited numbers of these works at a time through “Controlled Digital Lending,” … CDL’s central tenet, according to a September 2018 Statement and White Paper by a group of librarians, is that an entity that owns a physical book can scan that book and “circulate [the] digitized title in place of [the] physical one in a controlled manner.” … CDL’s most critical component is a one-to-one “owned to loaned ratio.” Id. Thus, a library or organization that practices CDL will seek to “only loan simultaneously the number of copies that it has legitimately acquired.”
…
Judging itself “uniquely positioned to be able to address this problem quickly and efficiently,” on March 24, 2020, IA launched what it called the National Emergency Library (“NEL”), intending it to “run through June 30, 2020, or the end of the US national emergency, whichever is later.” … During the NEL, IA lifted the technical controls enforcing its one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio and allowed up to ten thousand patrons at a time to borrow each ebook on the Website.
[…]
The Publishers have established a prima facie case of copyright infringement.
First, the Publishers hold exclusive publishing rights in the Works in Suit …
Second, IA copied the entire Works in Suit without the Publishers’ permission. Specifically, IA does not dispute that it violated the Publishers’ reproduction rights, by creating copies of the Works in Suit … ; the Publishers’ rights to prepare derivative works, by “recasting” the Publishers’ print books into ebooks …; the Publishers’ public performance rights, through the “read aloud” function on IA’s Website …; and the publishers’ display rights, by showing the Works in Suit to users through IA’s in-browser viewer
Bold added.
It’s pretty much not in dispute that Internet Archive distributed the copyrighted works of the publishers without permission, outside of what even a traditional library lending system would allow.
To do that they need to make sure they have adequate funding and make sure they don’t incur some huge financial liabilities somehow. The Internet Archive failed at that last part when they decided to lend out ebooks that are under copyright without many limits (and potentially with their Great 78 Project regarding music as well).
Internet Archive’s other projects like the Wayback Machine may be good but how they handled their digital lending of books during the pandemic was not. They removed the limit on the number of people that can borrow a book at a time, thus taking away any resemblance to traditional physical lending. You can argue that copyright laws are bad and should be changed (and I’d agree) but that doesn’t change the facts of what happened under the current law.
Are there any semi-popular alternative browsers still based on WebKit? I thought most of them like Brave and Vivaldi were based on Chromium’s Blink rather than WebKit.
That’s likely what they want. If you’re not viewing their ads and your third-party app is even blocking all the tracking, then you are not providing any value to them to keep you as a ‘customer’. All it does is reduce their hosting and serving costs when you’re blocked or when you eventually stop using it.
To be fair, one of the apps mentioned, [Re]Vanced, is literally just the stock app with extra features patched in and the premium features enabled for free (like no ads and downloads). It makes sense that it would be more user friendly. Allowing that modified version doesn’t get them any revenue though while still costing them to host and serve the content to those users.
At least with NewPipe it supports multiple sites and is its own app with their own code and UI.
They already do but it’s pretty restrictive in what can be changed about the experience:
https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer-policies-guide#examples_3
They changed it in the article after it was originally posted: https://web.archive.org/web/20231116232800/https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/16/23964509/google-manifest-v3-rollout-ad-blockers
They have a note about it at the bottom:
Correction November 16th, 9:41PM ET: Firefox is based on Gecko, not Chromium. We regret the error.
And that’s a bad thing?
The desktop is finally catching up with the more restrictive permissions model where an app doesn’t just have the ability to do anything the user can do but instead only has access to what it needs.
Going with a familiar interface style like the ones people already use on mobile just makes sense.
What would you want it to look like instead?
I feel like it’s less a conspiracy and more that some people will accept nothing less than no ads or tracking whatsoever, even if it makes no economic sense with regards to how sites support themselves.