Brave disables Chromium FLoC features • Hacker News Board

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#71

Post by miedpo » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

simias wrote: post #56

That's a very interesting move. The patch seems fairly small, but now it's a patch that Brave needs to maintain and update every time they merge a new upstream version. That's what makes me wary of the whole Chromium fork concept. Every time Brave/Vivaldi/Edge/etc decide to take a different path from Google's they effectively add to their maintenance burden forever, even if like in this case they actually disable an…

From what I'm remembering, Eich said that once they got big enough, they'd be willing to fork a browser if necessary. I wouldn't put that past Brave considering how many changes it's had (used to be on a different browser engine, also used to use Electron). They'll probably have to grow a bit before this happens though.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#72

Post by throwaway3699 » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

HeckFeck wrote: post #38

JoshTriplett wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to have ads at all. The best option is an adblocker, and a non-Chrome-based browser.

Preach. I don't consent to tracking. I don't want my browser helping anyone track me in any way. I don't want to be pressured and manipulated into buying things I don't need. Advertising is not moral and I owe nothing to anyone who tries to manipulate me. Websites can move to more efficient and lighter methods of delivery to cover the absence of advertising revenue. Anyone skilled who works in the advertising industr…

> Anyone skilled who works in the advertising industry is freed to offer his skills to better human endeavours.

I don't want to be rude, but won't they just end up losing their livelihoods? If the advertising industry goes, most programmers will see their salaries drop hugely. Even those not working in advertising will see a drop due to the flood of supply.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#73

Post by varispeed » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 10:20 PM UTC

phnofive wrote: post #24

The recursive irony here is that Alphabet implemented FLoC to put a moat around tracking adtech, and Brave consumes Chromium for its own means of generating revenue from vending a browser (BAT), so of course there’s no reason to propagate FLoC.

I don't understand why tracking is not being considered as mechanism helping companies to manipulate consumers into buying their stuff, essentially amounting to fraud? If you were going to track someone in real life and manipulating them into buying something, you would certainly end up in jail, so why is this allowed over the internet? Because consumers don't see companies who stalk them? In my opinion the whole tracking business should be illegal.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#74

Post by xvector » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 10:20 PM UTC

dialtone wrote: post #12

dataflow wrote: post #11

Is there any evidence behind the idea that FLoC is more privacy-preserving than third-party cookies? Intuitively that is not obvious to me at all, especially given there are so many other fingerprinting techniques it could be combined with.

You can't use FLoC ID for fingerprinting, it changes continuously.

"FLoC cohorts will comprise thousands of users each, so a cohort ID alone shouldn’t distinguish you from a few thousand other people like you. However [a tracker now] only has to distinguish your browser from a few thousand others (rather than a few hundred million). In information theoretic terms, FLoC cohorts will contain several bits of entropy—up to 8 bits, in Google’s proof of concept trial. This information is even more potent given that it is unlikely to be correlated with other information that the browser exposes. This will make it much easier for trackers to put together a unique fingerprint for FLoC users."

"as your FLoC cohort will update over time, sites that can identify you in other ways will also be able to track how your browsing changes [...] a FLoC cohort is nothing more, and nothing less, than a summary of your recent browsing activity."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-...

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#75

Post by tssva » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 10:20 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #46

londons_explore wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I must have ads, I'd prefer not be tracked by hundreds of untrustworthy companies, and I'd also prefer not see irrelevant ads... This therefore seems like the best bad option...

I see irrelevant ads anyway. I’d rather block all this and use Brave and/or an ad blocker. A choice of least worst is not necessary.

Brave is a protection racket, crypto scam, privacy violating always with an excuse after company. Why the hell would I trust them?

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#76

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 10:20 PM UTC

dialtone wrote: post #12

dataflow wrote: post #11

Is there any evidence behind the idea that FLoC is more privacy-preserving than third-party cookies? Intuitively that is not obvious to me at all, especially given there are so many other fingerprinting techniques it could be combined with.

You can't use FLoC ID for fingerprinting, it changes continuously.

[deleted]

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#77

Post by dialtone » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 10:21 PM UTC

comex wrote: post #44

dialtone wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a very similar feature to Apple Segments[1] already implemented in iOS on which sadly not a lot of documentation is available. [1]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223

Except that those aren't offered up to every website you visit.

Very thin distinction here given that they can still be purchased by advertisers and Apple has every interest in being the only company monetizing on their platform so the number of parties seeing this is irrelevant if the point was the surveillance problem.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#78

Post by foobiter » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 10:21 PM UTC

draz wrote: post #43

dataflow wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the cohort membership change frequently? Isn't it based on your browsing habits? I don't think my habits change frequently—do most people's? Also, even if I take for granted that everyone's cohort changes daily, how does that imply anonymity? Like say my habit is that I check emails a ton on Monday, go on YouTube on Saturday, read the news on Sunday, etc... so my habits are changing daily, okay, but not wee…

Cohorts cannot be too small (or they are not published), nor too big (or they are not particularly useful for capturing a particular set of behaviors/interests). The algorithm will balance these two constraints which will lead to any individuals coming in and out of particular cohorts. The semantic meaning of a cohort will likely change over time as well. For that, FLoC is proposing adding version IDs

as long as cohorts are smaller than all traffic received it makes fingerprinting easier

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#79

Post by jeffgreco » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 10:22 PM UTC

HeckFeck wrote: post #47

londons_explore wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using an adblocker is like stealing candy from the store... They can handle some theft, but if literally everyone stole their candy, the store would close down and nobody can have candy.

I'm not stealing anything by instructing my computer not to run code against my consent. No one is entitled to my CPU time. Least of all are advertisers. Also, the store isn't freakishly stalking me and noting down all my habits whilst sharing what it has collected with its friends, or indeed anyone who will buy the data. Besides, candy is impossible to replicate in the same way that data is. Theft of physical object…

I would respect the Adblock crowd more if they didn’t run around describing their actions as brave or “morally responsible.” It’s ok to admit that you’re taking something without return!

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#80

Post by jeffgreco » Sat, Apr 10, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

judge2020 wrote: post #34

JoshTriplett wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to have ads at all. The best option is an adblocker, and a non-Chrome-based browser.

I'd also like to support websites I visit, though, if I don't have the money to directly donate to them and if I am going to purchase a product anyways (think visiting an amazon product page, leaving it for a day, then clicking an ad for it to give x% to the website). Many websites today wouldn't exist without ads since a lot of their traffic is people who don't go out of their way to donate to websites they find use…

Why are you spending time on websites you don’t find useful?