zlacker

>>topshe+(OP)
One of the proposals for WEI is to make it probabilistically fail.

Ie. on a given device, for 10% of websites, WEI pretends to be unsupported.

That means websites can't deny service where WEI is unsupported. Yet it still allows statistical analysis across bulk user accounts.

If WEI was implemented like this, I would support it as being good for the web ecosystem.

>>london+P6
This is the bait to make it sound reasonable. Of course this hold-back feature will be quietly disabled at some point in the future. The whole proposal is full of weaselly half truths and misrepresentation about their real plans

>>phpnod+m8
> this hold-back feature will be quietly disabled at some point in the future.

Will it though? Googles main reason for WEI I assume is to combat ad-fraud. Ie. to prevent someone making a bot farm to click ads to earn money from advertising or exhaust competitors ad budgets or manipulate search engine user ranking signals.

With WEI, all ad clicks without WEI could just be ignored (ie. not billed to advertisers, ignored when calculating statistics and signals). If 10% of clients have WEI 'cloaking', you just inflate the final advertising bill by 10% to account for those users - the end result is the same as billing for all real users and no bots.

WEI still achieves all of Googles goals even with cloaking.

>>london+Ib
>Will it though? Googles main reason for WEI I assume is to combat ad-fraud. Ie. to prevent someone making a bot farm to click ads to earn money from advertising or exhaust competitors ad budgets or manipulate search engine user ranking signals.

Right. And so I ask this question: Why should I be forced to donate my data, CPU cycles, network bandwidth and privacy to one of the largest corporations in the world so they can address an issue (ad fraud) between them and their customers?

I'd note that I am not a customer of Google or their advertisers. Because advertisers are the only real customers of Google.

Edit: Clarified my point.