Live data from Hacker News

Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

github.com

211–220 of 352 posts

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#211
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Ads you see on the App store or Apple News' and 'ads on the the entire web' is very substantial distinction, as is the scope of the surveillance involved. Another one big one is - you can turn the Apple thing off.

This is a pretty naive argument and distinction as well. It's pretty obvious Apple doesn't have financially valuable properties on the web but they have plenty in their application ecosystem. In Apple's view Apple News is how people consume news, not go to the web where the user experience isn't custom tailored by Apple. Apple News is barely different than Google AMP that everyone rages against, try to get someone to…

pretty naive argument and distinction as well.

when did the argument move from "advertising bad, tracking data always bad, targeted advertising terrible" to "if Apple does it then I'm good with it"?

It'd be a lot cooler if you could respond to my actual argument without namecalling and putting words in my mouth. For one thing, it's rude; for another, it doesn't contain much of a counter-argument.

You said the distinction between what Apple does and Google does is 'thin'. The distinction is Apple does this in two specific services of their own, one of which is completely optional and in both cases, the cohort bucketing and tracking can be turned off. Google is putting it in the browser people use to do just about everything on the internet. A roughly similar thing would be Apple adding cohort bucketing to Safari. They haven't. These seem, to me at least, some significant distinctions. Why do you think they aren't?

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#212
post #75
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sources?

That just seems like hyperbole actually, and from a biased opinion or vested interest.

Brave seems to handle privacy very well considering the choices available, and has made a number of good privacy decisions from what I can see after watching browsers evolve for 25 years. I have switched to using Brave and installing it for those I support.

The crypto thing is 1) easy to turn off, 2) an attempt at a possibly better business model where users aren't just sold with it. Regardless I simply turn the crypto setting off.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#213
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because combined with browser fingerprinting it is exactly the outcome

https://amiunique.org/ "Yes! You are unique among the 3387629 fingerprints in our entire dataset." Browser fingerprinting already works fine without FLoC.

That site seems to be pretty buggy. https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ has more visitors and seems to have a wider collection.

With Safari on macOS I get a score of ~1/8500. Not amazing, but certainly not catastrophic.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#214
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you're replying to is not accusing you of stealing, they are using stealing from a candy store as a metaphor for how a certain amount of behavior that a company doesn't like is tolerated because it is not worth the effort to stop. The point is that Google could prevent most people from using ad blockers any time they wanted, but don't view it as worth the bad PR (or choose not to for other reasons).

> they are using stealing from a candy store as a metaphor for how a certain amount of behavior that a company doesn't like ... It's a bad metaphor, a better metaphor would be reading a journal and covering ads with post it notes.

Well, someone else is covering it in post it notes and serving it to you. Again, the same issue applies, if everyone covers the ads in the journal then the advertisers will leave the journal and it will have to shutdown.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it abhorrent? FLoC doesn't compromise your privacy. It does interest inference client-side, away from bigcorp servers. It doesn't leak any information about you. But all the "privacy" people are totally against it anyway. Why? Because they just hate advertising. The whole "third party cookies are bad" thing has always been a sham: it was never about privacy. It's always been about killing advertising itself.

killing targeted, obnoxious ads

all obnoxious ads are bad, but I tend to find the less targeted ones, for example the ones for payday loans or ambulance chasers, more obnoxious than products based on my hobbies.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#216
I'm going to be that guy tonight. I never post online. I don't see value in posting online. But I feel as if I have to weight in on this conversation.

I run an online business. I depend on ads. I hate being tracked.

Here's the deal, Google is tracking you no matter what. Even if they aren't using your information for advertising, you still feed them all the best first party data in the world. You give them your search queries, emails, your phone location etc..

Your information is valuable. Even if you block online advertising, you are still going to be targeted in the real world the same way.

Facebook, yes they are shitty too, but again, they are fed all this information. Now, their information is 3rd party. They get pixel fires about you that allow them to coorelate data about you, but it isn't first part exactly.

In the advertising world you target the person or you target on page. The issue with on page is there just isn't enough content about a subject to target and frankly, just beacuse you read something, doesn't mean you are interested in buying it.

I don't care if it's a cookie, or FLoC, or what ever, people are going to be monitored, it's too large of a business. As an individual if you are afraid of it, you have the choice to use Brave or what ever. But at large scale, most people don't care. I believe that this tracking rhetoric is dangerous. At least we are having the conversation about tracking and allowing the people who don't want to be tracked to avoid it. If it were the inverse, these things would still happen behind closed doors, because it's extremely profitable.

Governements have been tracking people forever. Some choose to do evil, populations revolt. People can always beat governments.

Yes I am bias becuase my business does depend on paid advertising like many others. I understand the "big brother" effect. But I also know that other agencies (NSA/CIA) are already doing these things and are either forcing the tech companies to collect the data and share it or are willing to do it. The fact that we all focus on private companies being the crux of the problem and aren't focus on the 3 letter agencies.

Either way, we live in new uncertain times and the US economy has always been about consumerism. These ads have generated incredible amounts of wealth for indvidiaul companies and the tech companies. I do agree that Google makes too much money. As an advertiser, I know that their algorithm is essentially a black box and as an advertiser we are getting fucked. We have no real transparency that our bids are true. We are hoping to hit a CPA and just keep to it.

I can tell you that in the last 2 years, online advertising performance has dropped a lot. It's a combination of people having less money and our economy doing worse and there's a lot more competition. I suspect that these companies are inflating their bids artificially. We know that Facebook penalizes people it doesn't like but provides absolute no transparency on the system. These penalties also cost you more money - which is bullshit.

All of these companies have no support to contact and you are at the beck and whim of a 3rd world outsourced tech support agent that can't do anything.

To summerize. I agree tracking is bad. But you offer all of your data up every time you use email or a search engine. It's all collected and there is no better alterantive. At least these companies are providing a service for businesses to thrive. I think they make wayyyyy too much money. If you think disabling FLoC is going to stop anyting, you havn't looked at the big picture.

If people want to stop being tracked, get off the internet, don't use a search engine, don't use email. But that isn't practical. If you think any of these "Privacy Safe" companeis are doing anything other than just charging you and still handing your data over to what ever 3 letter agency requests it under an NSL, you're crazy.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lets not pretend that ads help people with less money. Who's pretending? Ads naturally and quite effectively price-discriminate, and so they do make internet content cheaper for people with less money. You may have problems with excessive consumption, but many people in developing countries do not. They desperately need the free content (educational, informative, and otherwise) that the current internet model provi…

There are much better options to provide people with educational, informative and entertaining content. Well funded public broadcasters like Australia ABC provide news and entertainment content free. (both text and video) Well funded public libraries can provide a wide range of alternate content.

Yeah, let's pretend libraries have equivalent content to the free internet!

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#218
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using an ablocker is more like going to church wearing earplugs.

Using an adblocker is more like walking down the street with earplugs that block out a preacher you didn't want to listen to.

A privately owned and maintained street.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#219

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.

Using an ablocker is more like going to church wearing earplugs.

Yeah you're just there for the dating not for the sermonizing

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#220
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think that’s the real goal. The real goal is to remove cookies so that compares other than google cannot use them for tracking. Then google uses FLOC as a substitute; they’re the only ones who can use FLOC so it works out great for them.

> they’re the only ones who can use FLOC It is available to everyone: cohort = await document.interestCohort(); See https://github.com/WICG/floc (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)

Great news. So how to I create my own set of cohorts?
Post reply on HN