How so? There seems a fairly inherent tension between having things just work by default and hiding surface area for fingerprinting behind permissions pop ups. For example say you go to a maps website, how do you decide whether to share the users location with the website? Or enable webGL functionality to render some fancy layout on the screen? As a user having to enable all that stuff per-website is annoying.
Maybe there's some other way Im missing?
Google's business model has been ads from the beginning. Search, gmail, drive, office, chrome, everything they do is just to drive ad revenue further.
They don't care about the user. Never have, and never will.
And the outcome we are seeing is what happens when a defunct state isn't able to protect citizens from conglomerates. That's what the Kartellamt or the FTC is supposed to be for.
The company as a whole also really stopped caring at some point and are now following the “do be evil” paradigm
Not sure if I can't see this comment as anything else than hypocritical. It's always easier on the money receiving side, isn't it? How do you think the term malvertisement came to be?
AdMob is kind of the definition of inevitable Surveillance Capitalism and the prime example for necessary regulation through government.
On the web one is drive-by fingerprinted by sites they never once approved of or intended to visit thanks to the browser’s ability to redirect and embed without input from the user. The magnitude of the problem is far greater on the web.
To reframe it, in a given week the average person only uses a small handful of apps, but in the same span of time their browser has connected to thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of unique domains, most of which are tracking them in some capacity and the majority of which are tracking things most of us would consider invasive.