Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Vivaldi browser will not support Google’s FLoC

vivaldi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 216 posts

Re: The Vivaldi browser will not support Google’s FLoC

#21

Post by eitland »

echelon wrote: post #3

The DOJ needs to strip Google's ability to run the world's most popular browser away from it. This is far more blatant than Microsoft antitrust with Internet Explorer. Google is literally shaping the entire internet into their ad funnel. Google cannot be allowed to run Chrome.

Actually if someone trustworthy could take care of developing the browser engine everyone else could develop the browsers around it.

Not sure if it would be a good idea, but absolutely an interesting one.

My biggest issue with the idea is how we can ensure that a single browser engine isn't manipulated into a tool for power hugry politicians and the increasingly problematic media industry.

Re: The Vivaldi browser will not support Google’s FLoC

#22

Post by dleslie »

tobyjsullivan wrote: post #16
jereees wrote: post #10

I’m sure there has to be a better way to introduce the audience to FLoC. I’m over five paragraphs in and the article hasn’t properly articulated what is FLoC and _why_ it is bad. Just that it is bad.

I wonder if that's because there's no short way to describe FLoC in a way that makes it sound bad for users. They'd need one paragraph to introduce FLoC, then another three making nuanced arguments about how it's actually worse than the status quo, and only then could they get to the core post about not supporting it. Better to avoid that fire and just let the reader infer FLoC is bad, whatever it is.

FLoC is a granular identifier that groups users into cohorts of a few dozen thousand based upon their recent browsing history, allowing advertisers to uniquely identify users with only a few additional bits of information _and_ more easily collaborate to identify a user's browsing history.

That wasn't hard.

Re: The Vivaldi browser will not support Google’s FLoC

#23

Post by paxys »

jereees wrote: post #10

I’m sure there has to be a better way to introduce the audience to FLoC. I’m over five paragraphs in and the article hasn’t properly articulated what is FLoC and _why_ it is bad. Just that it is bad.

There is enough preexsting content that introduces FLoC. That is not the purpose of this article.

Re: The Vivaldi browser will not support Google’s FLoC

#24

Post by oh_sigh »

paxys wrote: post #4

> The FLoC component in Chrome needs to call Google’s servers to check if it can function since Google is only enabling it in parts of the world that are not covered by Europe’s GDPR This is all you should need to know about it.

Except there may be perfectly benign reasons for doing this, not "this is totally illegal in the EU but let's just push it on everyone else".

For example, the lawyers may believe the technology is legal, but haven't worked through all the implications with respect to the GDPR. So the end goal may be that it is launched in the EU, but they aren't ready to do so yet.

Re: The Vivaldi browser will not support Google’s FLoC

#25

Post by sanxiyn »

eitland wrote: post #21
echelon wrote: post #3

The DOJ needs to strip Google's ability to run the world's most popular browser away from it. This is far more blatant than Microsoft antitrust with Internet Explorer. Google is literally shaping the entire internet into their ad funnel. Google cannot be allowed to run Chrome.

Actually if someone trustworthy could take care of developing the browser engine everyone else could develop the browsers around it. Not sure if it would be a good idea, but absolutely an interesting one. My biggest issue with the idea is how we can ensure that a single browser engine isn't manipulated into a tool for power hugry politicians and the increasingly problematic media industry.

WebKit was that engine, shared by Chrome and Safari. In retrospect WebKit age was the golden age of web browsers.

Re: The Vivaldi browser will not support Google’s FLoC

#26

Post by bilal4hmed »

kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj wrote: post #5
echelon wrote: post #3

The DOJ needs to strip Google's ability to run the world's most popular browser away from it. This is far more blatant than Microsoft antitrust with Internet Explorer. Google is literally shaping the entire internet into their ad funnel. Google cannot be allowed to run Chrome.

Google needs to be split up, plain and simple. They are the most dangerous company in America

Splitting is not the solution to anything. Tell how splitting will solve anything ?? Let chinese companies or Apple or Microsoft buy up everything ???

Re: The Vivaldi browser will not support Google’s FLoC

#27

Post by eitland »

TameAntelope wrote: post #14
echelon wrote: post #3

The DOJ needs to strip Google's ability to run the world's most popular browser away from it. This is far more blatant than Microsoft antitrust with Internet Explorer. Google is literally shaping the entire internet into their ad funnel. Google cannot be allowed to run Chrome.

So if you create something interesting enough, the government shouldn't let you keep it? What kind of incentive is that to create interesting things?

No.

That's not what it means.

Chrome was fine early on.

The problem is when they have abused their power for 5 years and have all but killed all competition.

Then they need to be published just like Microsoft was.

There's nothing to be worried about: Google will survive, just like Microsoft did despite some serious punishment. If anything Microsoft learned and came out (somewhat) nicer and more agile.

Re: The Vivaldi browser will not support Google’s FLoC

#28

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

"Please switch to a browser that supports FLoC to view this page." [Links to Chrome, etc.]

"This website requires a browser that supports FLoC. Please install one of the folllowing compatible browsers: " [Links for Chrome, etc.]

"We've detected you are using a browser that does not support FLoC. Please update your browser to use this website." [Links to Chrome, etc.]

"Your browser is outdated! Please upgrade." [Links to Chrome, etc.]

"Browsehappy" [Links to Chrome, etc.]

As someone who routinely uses a browser that does not support Javascript, I see "warnings" like this once in a while. There are so many. Apologies if I remember the wordings incorrectly. Of course, 99% of the time the lack of a Javascript engine has zero effect on the ability to retrieve the information I need from the site. And I still get the info in the 1% cases anyway, if I really want it.

With FLoC, will web developers be able to make claims that a site "will not work" without FLoC. How will they get users to use Chrome or other browsers that enable FLoC by default.

Re: The Vivaldi browser will not support Google’s FLoC

#29

Post by tantalor »

nimih wrote: post #19
Chlorus wrote: post #15

> Such adverts may be seen as a way to make money but can be used to influence user behaviour and control people in large numbers FLoC & ad-tracking sucks but can we dial back the hysteria?

Isn't efficient advertising, the stated goal of FLoC, precisely the practice of influencing and controlling behavior on a large scale?

Efficient advertising is the goal of markets. Are we trying to dismantle basic economics here?

Re: The Vivaldi browser will not support Google’s FLoC

#30

Post by Santosh83 »

eitland wrote: post #21
echelon wrote: post #3

The DOJ needs to strip Google's ability to run the world's most popular browser away from it. This is far more blatant than Microsoft antitrust with Internet Explorer. Google is literally shaping the entire internet into their ad funnel. Google cannot be allowed to run Chrome.

Actually if someone trustworthy could take care of developing the browser engine everyone else could develop the browsers around it. Not sure if it would be a good idea, but absolutely an interesting one. My biggest issue with the idea is how we can ensure that a single browser engine isn't manipulated into a tool for power hugry politicians and the increasingly problematic media industry.

> My biggest issue with the idea is how we can ensure that a single browser engine isn't manipulated into a tool for power hugry politicians and the increasingly problematic media industry.

With a single engine diversity is already dead. But one can argue you can still build shallow or deep skins on top, but the problem of default bundling with devices is harder to solve. That's really where Chrome got the clinching edge over Firefox.

Post reply on HN