←back to thread

France fines Apple €150M for “excessive” pop-ups that let users reject tracking

(arstechnica.com)
249 points sebastian_z | 5 comments | 31 Mar 25 17:38 UTC | HN request time: 0.199s | source
Show context
gruez ◴[31 Mar 25 18:36 UTC] No.43538202[source]▶
No good deed goes unpunished. Don't protect users' privacy, and you get flak from regulators for "not doing enough". Protect users' privacy, and you get flak from regulators because it's "too complex and hurts small companies that rely on advertising revenue". You see similar levels of cynicism directed at Google. When firefox banned third party cookies, it was almost universally welcomed, but when Chrome does it the cynics come out and say how it's actually some sort dastardly ploy to cement their position in the ad market because third party adtech firms are disproportionately harmed.
replies(3): >>43538245 #>>43538658 #>>43538803 #
1. ipaddr ◴[31 Mar 25 18:40 UTC] No.43538245[source]▶
One benefits directly while the other doesn't. Plus many people complained.
replies(2): >>43538420 #>>43540560 #
2. gruez ◴[31 Mar 25 18:53 UTC] No.43538420[source]▶
>One benefits directly while the other doesn't.

That's the exact of cynicism I'm talking about. It doesn't matter whether banning third party was good for users or not, only whether Google (or Mozilla) stood to benefit. This is absolutely toxic because it means objectively good changes get shouted down.

> Plus many people complained.

For what, Firefox?

replies(2): >>43541878 #>>43545424 #
3. briandear ◴[31 Mar 25 22:15 UTC] No.43540560[source]▶
The advertising industry was who filed the complaint, it wasn’t a bunch of normal users. If the ad industry wasn’t so shitty, I might give them the benefit of the doubt.
4. ATMLOTTOBEER ◴[01 Apr 25 01:23 UTC] No.43541878[source]▶
Chrome never actually did away with third party cookies
5. johnnyanmac ◴[01 Apr 25 11:18 UTC] No.43545424[source]▶
>It doesn't matter whether banning third party was good for users or not, only whether Google (or Mozilla) stood to benefit.

Well, yes. These are billion dollar companies. Always follow the money. The incentives change everything.

>This is absolutely toxic because it means objectively good changes get shouted down.

Probably because "objectively good" changes often follow before even more harmful decisions. Many have long lost their benefit of the double for these Big Tech trillionaifes. And the reputation is deserved.