Month: May 2018

Firefox no like COOKIES

Internet companies are all fighting for a niche. In doing so, they collectively represent a great example of the tragedy of the commons. The combined consequence of serving their individual personal interests may end up destroying the shared opportunity that is the Internet. This will be a long post, but I promise to try to bring all of the topics together at the end.

FireFox (and Apple Safari) have found their niches by offering users security. Taking advantage of recent legitimate user concerns related to privacy, the newest Mozilla FireFox browser offers a technique for blocking cookies and as one consequence avoiding the display of one technique for displaying targeted ads. This technique can be fine-tuned by the user, but comes with the cookie blocking feature turned on. There are several ways to tune this capability, but the easiest approach is just to use FireFox as is.

Here is a very brief tutorial that should be sufficient to use the most basic capabilities. Remember the default is to block cookies. There may be situations in which this is an issue. It is unlikely you want targeted ads, but you may be other services you want that do take advantage of cookies. To the left of the address bar, you should see a shield and an i within a circle. Selecting this area of the browser should reveal a drop-down menu. One of the options allows you to turn “tracking protection” on (or off again).


Just to be clear, ads and cookies can be related or independent “problems”. Cookies offer the mechanism allowing targeted ads. The cookies allow the collection of information about your online behavior and this information can be used to provide you ads suited to your interests. You probably recognize this method as the method by which Google sells ads (to those willing to purchase them) and provides you ads you might find useful. It is also one method by which other companies collect information about you. You could allow Google to set cookies and block others, but who wants to learn how to do this or to take the time.

Ads do not require the use of cookies to collect information. As an example likely to be familiar to my readers, the site FreeTech4Teachers displays multiple banner ads alongside the entire blog. These are not targeted ads in the way Google ads are targeted and visitors all see the same collection of ads. The ads are assumed to be of interest to educators, but are only targeted in the way specialty magazines or television programs offer ads based on their audience. Turning cookies off will not prevent the display of these ads. To explain in a simple way, these ads are simply images that serve as links to the companies promoted. You can’t really turn this off because using images as links is basic HTML and serves may other functions on other sites.

The issue I would like to point out here is related to the need for content producers (anyone who wants to use ads to support the effort to provide content) and service providers (the companies who offer a free service in return for potential ad revenue) to generate revenue. Google makes a lot of money, but also pays many individuals and has many infrastructure expenses. Google supports its need for revenue by targeted ads (which depend on cookies). Some content providers take the same approach and addition rely on users to offer free content (e.g., Facebook).

Two things could happen if everyone would block cookies:

  • Companies such as Google would have to attempt to develop countermeasures (not provide services to users unwilling to accept cookies), or
  • Go out of business.

Countermeasures are easier to implement than you might think. For example, I could add a small segment of code in the header to this site that would determine the browser requesting access and refer the user to a different page if the browser was Mozilla Firefox. This second page might ask that anyone wanting to view the content on the first page access this information using Chrome. I am certain that the Google coders could come up with techniques that are far more sophisticated.

At present, Google is not likely to do this type of thing because FireFox has such a small share of the market. If FireFox had Chrome’s share of the market, Google would have to try something to protect its business model.

I don’t know where this is all going. There is no free, only different ways to pay. My long-term predictions would be a move to micropayments. This would be a system by which users would have to set up an account and the money in this account would be drawn on depending on what they viewed. New companies would serve as intermediaries to provide this service (something like a credit card company). The cost per page would be very small (a cent or so), but this is pretty much what Google generates through its present ad model. The cost could vary from site to site and some would probably be free. Imagine reading anything you wanted from the New York Times for a few cents per article. There would be no need for a subscription to the entire information source. Sites attempting to sell you things (e.g., Amazon) would be free because that service would have another way of generating income.

Loading

Kialo – structured argumentation

Kialo’s mission statement is to “empower reason” in the midst of a social media environment that seems to have lost the capacity to enable meaningful discussion. I see a great opportunity for educators here while Kialo has a broader focus. In a way, Kialo is similar to Hypothes.is, a service which wanted participants to “annotate the web”, both expressing a desire to develop services providing a way for all to participate in addressing important issues.

I am interested in the potential of Kialo because I have written about argumentation (similar to debate) as an important learning activity. My perspective has been strongly influenced by the work of Deana Kuhn who writes about the limitations of the perspective students often take in considering controversial topics and the value of teaching argumentation as a way to address these limitations and to develop critical thinking skills.

Kialo allows a host to state a thesis (e.g., Educators should abandon traditional textbooks and use projects and online resources), seed a discussion with several pro and con statements, and then invite others to react.

The “discussion” can be made public or shared with designated others (considered private). Invited participants can rate their level of agreement with the original premise (A), rate their agreement with specific pro or con statements (B), or add their own pro or con statements (C). They can also add their pro or con statements in reaction to existing pro or con statements. Comments and links can be attached to pro or con statements as a way of adding supporting evidence.

My thinking was that this service offers a way to implement some of the techniques suggested by Kuhn. Dr. Kuhn liked to use a simple messaging technique allowing participants to post brief arguments and evidence to each other. The value in this approach in contrast to a traditional verbal debate was the concrete record of comments allowing for followup and analysis. Kialo would allow this and has far more detailed opportunities for analysis should users want more.

Should you want to explore, I have posted the “abandon textbook” Kialo project and you are invited to participate.

Loading

The end of “Don’t be evil”

Google has decided to “downgrade” “Don’t be evil” in its employee code of conduct. I always liked the Google story and the original directive to its employees. It seemed a positive message and a laudable goal. From my perspective, Google is still less evil than the others in the big four (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google).

Citizens of the U.S. seem to be struggling with the ethics of unbridled capitalism. We live in a society that has come to question the equity of our system. It turns out that everyone does not actually have the same opportunities and our politicians are embracing the failed model of trickle-down economics moving tax dollars from the needy to large corporations. The Internet itself is no longer open with the removal of the provision preventing the companies that control our access from the opportunity to control that access often leaving citizens no opportunity to seek an alternate provider. Now, we must deal with the end of don’t be evil.

We are partly at fault. We have embraced the false promise of free. We should have known better. Most of us would seem capable of processing the impossibility of providing services and hiring employees of great talent without an obvious source of income. Yes, we saw a few small ads, but few of us ever clicked on those ads. We should have known better.

Perhaps reality has now set in. Given that “free” is an illusion, what should we expect now? Probably, the best we can hope for is transparency. Trading the record of our online behavior to Google for ads that are consistent with our interests AND free services seems a reasonable deal. Companies that collect this information and sell it to other companies is not (Facebook).

Government oversight is presently confused with socialism. People seem confused by the promotion of economic principles that are argued to be open, but are really not when examined more closely. We need regulation that actually allows for equitable competition. I am still a Google fan, but the downgrading of “Don’t be evil” is a sign of the times.

Loading

Google Photos – Lens

I have been waiting for some time to explore Google lens. This Google Photos capability was first available for Android devices but was supposed to be rolling out for iOS. Cindy has the capability on her iphone, but I, as yet, do not.

Anyway, I found that I can use Google Lens on my Chromebook and the larger screen offered advantages in recording a demonstration of what Lens can do.

My demonstration may paint a picture that is too positive. The service is impressive. One of the capabilities I keep searching for is related to my background in teaching biology. I am a sucker for apps that purport to identify plants and animals. Google Lens might be expected to have similar capabilities.

What I have found about this application of AI is that plant identification is very challenging. This makes sense as the images provided may or may not reveal critical features the AI needs to make an accurate identification. What I remember from classes requiring that I identify unknown species with a “key” is that even with guidance this process is challenging. I like to test the AI capability of these products by visiting a zoo or botanical garden that offers examples I do not know, but also provides labels for the exhibits. Does the identification of the technology offer a match?

What Lens does in such circumstances is make its best guess, but it also shows you images of other matches it considered. This seems a reasonable combination of AI and human intelligence. As a learning experience, the consideration of the options may offer a superior opportunity. You have to be involved. The technology scaffolds the experience by limiting the options and you end up making a decision.

 

Loading