UX is actively misleading

[trbrc]

"Turn on an ad privacy feature" is the title of the blocking modal in Chrome that tries to get me to turn this on.

But of course, it is the opposite of a privacy feature. A privacy feature would reduce the amount of personal data being shared. This increases it.

This undermines your claimed Privacy goal number 4, and reveals the actual intention of this API proposal. This is after all a Google proposal and the current UX is a Google implementation, and Google has an obvious interest in tracking-based ads. This proposal should be rejected.

[michaelkleber]

Hi @trbrc,

This API, by design, does not increase cross-site data, because everything this API does can already be done using third-party cookies. But of course the information-sharing of 3rd-party cookies (specifically as used in ads selection) is much much larger than what Topics does.

So this API makes it possible to pick ads in a way that is much more private than the status quo — that's why it is an ad privacy feature. Of course ad tech companies are not forced to use this new, much more private technique. For removal of the old way of doing things, please see https://privacysandbox.com/timeline on the part of the effort that involves turning down 3rd-party cookies, happening next year.

@gustavo-cycling If you want to insult people, please go elsewhere. Participation here is conditioned on abiding by the W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.

[trbrc]

That there is something worse is not an excuse for characterizing something bad as good. Especially not when that worse thing is about to be phased out.

Both topics and third-party cookies are bad for privacy. Third-party cookies had various legitimate uses, but happened to be very bad for privacy. Topics are intentionally bad for privacy: the API is literally introduced to allow these privacy intrusions to continue even as third-party cookies are phased out.

"Turn on an ad privacy feature" is misleading copy.

[AramZS]

@gustavo-cycling This repo is an incubation space provided by a W3C community group. As such, we invite open participation from all interested participants and follow the W3C code of conduct that has previously been linked. You've been warned and you haven't followed the code of conduct. Personal attacks are not permitted here. You need to keep your conversation in this context limited to discussing proposals and how they work. As I see it you've violated two principles of expected behavior:

1. Treat everyone with respect.
2. Do not accept or engage in abusive behavior in any form, whether it is verbal, physical, sexual, or implied.

I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience outside of this context but, this is not the place to talk about it and your posts run counter to how we discuss things here. As such I will be removing them and locking this thread. You may reach out if you have an issue with this process or escalate using the processes prescribed by the code if you feel I've acted inappropriately.