Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakelazaroff | Hacker News Reader

> I'm currently exploring using WebBundles to serve multiple ads in response to a single ad request, because it allows ads to be served more efficiently while keeping them secure and private, but ad blockers would still prevent the ad js from loading before the ad request was ever sent.

Why is this a use-case that I as a web user should care about? Frankly, I don't find it very comforting that an article raises privacy concerns, and an engineer working on ads at Google responds with "these concerns are misguided; I'm exploring this technology to make ads better."

View on HN

> Why is this a use-case that I as a web user should care about?

If you block ads, then my work will have no effect on you. If you do not block ads, then my work decreases bandwidth usage and makes it harder for ads to deface each other.

> I don't find it very comforting that an article raises privacy concerns, and an engineer working on ads at Google responds with...

The article describes privacy concerns, but those concerns are based on a misunderstanding of what WebBundles make easier. Specifically, they're concerned about URL randomization, which is no easier with bundles.

This is just super wrong. With WebBundles I can call 2 different things, in two different WebBundles https://example.org/good.js, and that can be different from what the wider web sees as https://example.org/good.js.

Random URLs are just an example of the capability they are not the fundamental problem

> With WebBundles I can call 2 different things, in two different WebBundles https://example.org/good.js, and that can be different from what the wider web sees as https://example.org/good.js.

I can also do that on my server based on whatever criteria I want, just by returning different content. How is this significantly different than the problem you've brought up?

The criteria are well-known and basically restricted to what is contained in an HTTP request. With web-bundles (like with service workers) the logic which actual resource the URL resolves to is instead deeply embedded into the browser.

At least, that's my understanding.

We're talking about what the server decides to put in the initial HTML file you request. Since those are almost never served cacheable to the client, the server can just randomize the URLs it produces.

Based on the example at [0], my understanding is that no, you can control and serve up "/good.js" from your domain, but webbundles allow you to override "https://example.com/good.js" while within the context of your bundle - a totally different domain you don't control.

[0] https://www.npmjs.com/package/wbn

Sigh. About time GPT-3 is put to use for content-blocking.

If the bundles are different than the bundles themselves will have different URLs.

If they're served by a 3rd-party then you block on domain or address to the bundle just like today. If it's 1st-party then they can already randomize every URL.

And now they have another option to randomize urls.

Actually the post says that we won't be able to block ads and read the rest of the page anymore. I can understand how Google benefits from that but I hope you understand why I wish that this standard will fail and you start working on something else, maybe in a different company.

> the post says that we won't be able to block ads and read the rest of the page anymore

Right, I'm claiming the post is wrong, and that this is not something WebBundling makes (newly) possible or makes easier.

FWIW I trust Brave a lot more on privacy than Google. Almost anyone who knows both companies would. The only less reputable source for privacy information is probably something from Facebook.

It's better to trust the spec and code itself than what either company says about it.

After experiencing the UX disaster that is AMP, I'd just prefer Google stop throwing its weight around "innovating" on the core web standards and stick to what it's good at: giving me what I ask for in the search bar. No, I don't trust the company that first monopolized search, then the browser, then manufacturer-neutral mobile phone OS to maintain a level playing field. Google has plenty of cash to throw at developers to dream up new schemes to bend the internet to their will in subtle ways. The rest of us don't have the resources to play that game, and we shouldn't have to. No one is more eager to have a well-reasoned, thoughtful debate Monday to Sunday than a lawyer paid by the hour. I suppose engineers, too.

why is it no easier with bundles? If I have a template with `<script src="{adtrackername}.js"/>` that I render into a web bundle on each request (relatively cheap), then each bundle can have random url names with no issues.

How is that different from having a template with `<script src="{adtrackername}.js"/>` that you render into your HTML on each request?

It's no easier with bundles because you can do the exact same thing with non-bundled resources, cheaply too.

Who would ever not want to block ads? The only people watching ads are likely those unable to figure out how to block them.

I don't block ads, and didn't block them even before I decided to start working in advertising. The ads are what fund most sites I visit; I like the sites and I wouldn't want to freeload. If a site's ads are too annoying I leave.

Funding a site by mind pollution, which is what push advertising is, is antisocial behaviour. The onus is on the site publisher to find an ethical source of revenue (just as with any business model). Putting up content on the web and funding that publishing are two different things. It's fine to be interested in and read the content while blocking an antisocial means of funding and that is not freeloading. It's protecting yourself from abuse.

I wanted to write a snarky response to this and went to look for some ad hominem seasoning for my zinger on www.jefftk.com. But I got played. It's hard to hold malice against someone who donates over 50% of their income every year [0]. Good on you. I'm going to keep using my adblocker, though.

0. https://www.jefftk.com/donations

From that page:

> Julia and I believe that one of the best ways to make the world better is to donate to effective charities.

I would argue that the best way to make the world better is to First do no harm. Making a large income by pushing ads at Google doesn't uphold that rule, in my opinion. And perhaps this person's sensitivity around their job is why they feel the need to publicly list their donations, rather than giving quietly. Public philanthropy has often been used as a way to try to deflect criticism from how the money was first made.

Public philanthropy by billionaires of what for them is actually a miniscule portion of their wealth is suspect. But this is not that.

I can't speak for Mr. Kaufman, but I imagine he shares this information publicly not to brag, but to encourage a new norm of publically donating a significant portion of one's income to effective charity.

He and his partner may have literally saved hundreds of lives with their contributions over the last few years alone[0].

What have you done for the world lately? For myself, the answer is: not enough.

0.https://www.givewell.org/how-we-work/our-criteria/cost-effec...

> Making a large income by pushing ads at Google doesn't uphold that rule

If I thought my work in advertising was harmful I would stop. I think it's probably slightly positive: https://www.jefftk.com/p/value-of-working-in-ads

> perhaps this person's sensitivity around their job is why they feel the need to publicly list their donations, rather than giving quietly

I've been listing my donations publicly since before I started working in ads. I wrote https://www.jefftk.com/p/make-your-giving-public when I was working on open source software that rewrote web pages so they would load faster.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com