Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Early design review for the Topics API (Issue #726)

Let's sum this up in very lay man terms:
Topics = google money.
It's not in users interest, nor should it be at the agenda of a moral society.
We, the people, want an integrally anonymized internet. If your business model can't survive because you can't monetize on the back of the data of your visitors, go do something more useful for society.
Stochastic plausible deniability is whitewashing of an otherwise dystopian behavior.
Pretension that "studies" demonstrated a desire from users to have targeted ads, is just done on the back of uneducated respondents about the risks of identifiability, and freedom of the web in general.
And an "improvement from cookies" is just a sophistry as explained by brave's devs on their blog, I quote

> Google claims that these systems, [...], improve privacy because they’re designed to replace third-party cookies. The plain truth is that privacy-respecting browsers [...] have been protecting users against third-party tracking (via cookies or otherwise) for years now.
> 
> Google’s proposals are privacy-improving only from the cynical, self-serving baseline of “better than Google today.” Chrome is still the most privacy-harming popular browser on the market, and Google is trying to solve a problem they introduced by taking minor steps meant to consolidate their dominance on the ad tech landscape. Topics does not solve the core problem of Google broadcasting user data to sites, including potentially sensitive information.


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726#issuecomment-1661833430
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726/1661833430@github.com>