61–70 of 264 posts
Why isn't this opt-in? I'm sick of having to add yet another config option every time some Web giant decides it is OK to abuse my website and my visitors.
> add_header Permissions-Policy interest-cohort=(); what does that even do?
How does it benefit website owners to opt out?
Presumably things that promote a healthy internet also benefit website owners since their sites exist on the internet.
- FLoC is still far better than third party cookies
- As much as we'd love to live in a world without advertising, 95% of the internet wouldn't exist without it.
- If we are going to have advertising, I'd much rather have FLoC than third party cookies
Waiting for google to make this a ranking factor for SEO like they did with amp.
Do you know if the algorithm favours sites with GA as a positive SEO ranking factor? or am I going into tin hat territory here?
Why isn't this opt-in? I'm sick of having to add yet another config option every time some Web giant decides it is OK to abuse my website and my visitors.
Who would opt in if it was?
What benefit would there be to opting in?
Unless Google make it a benefit in search rankings in which case some (possibly many) will for SEO purposes, bit still not enough I'd wager (and the balance would be such that lower quality sites, that prioritise SEO over actually useful content, would be the majority of those that went for it).
This feels a bit like way-back-when, when BT and a couple of other UK ISPs toyed with a system that would insert ads into web content, sometimes replacing existing ads, simultaneously bothering their users (to make money out of them on top of existing subscription payments), screwing site runners (being associated with ads they had no control or even knowledgeless knowledge of, and potentially losing ad revenue), and screwing other advert providers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the state of affairs with the mobile world is the worst. I can't help but think that Android was the worst disaster that happened to software industry. Android corrupted the ethos of FOSS, decimated all hopes for privacy, contributed to destroying the environment, stripped users of freedom of choice. I think it'll take a very special group of people to reverse the tide.
Can you elaborate on why you think Android is a disaster? Particularly the environmental aspect and freedom of choice. If android didn't exist then iOS might be the only major mobile OS, so in that sense at least it seems to be good that Android exists. It would be much better if it wasn't widely used as a carrier for Google's ecosystem and spyware, of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current state with third-party cookie tracking is terrible. This is terrible in a different way. It gives Google even more control over the ad-tech industry. Rather than a diversity of ad-tech kings using third-party cookies to track people and invade privacy, this becomes the "One Ring to Rule Them All" that makes Google even more dominant in ad-tech, while allowing them to pretend that they care about privacy a…
What about FLoC gives Google "even more control"? Isn't it something any ad-company can use? Maybe I don't understand how it works, but from what I've read, any website has the exact same access as Google does to the data.
Why isn't this opt-in? I'm sick of having to add yet another config option every time some Web giant decides it is OK to abuse my website and my visitors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Excluding a page is a manual process however, requiring to set the header mentioned in the blog post. So website owners have to explicitly opt-out of FLoC.
Web server software maintainers should enable the header by default. Bugs should be filed against those with the wrong default.