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

Opting Your Website Out of Google's FLoC Network

paramdeo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 264 posts

Re: Opting Your Website Out of Google's FLoC Network

#71

Post by jedwhite »

ehsankia wrote: post #59
jedwhite wrote: post #40

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.

As noted by Consumer Reports:

"When third-party cookies are replaced by FLoC, Google will have a way to track consumers that isn’t available to other companies, which could give Google a steep advantage in the advertising business." [1]

According to the EFF, Google controls the algorithms, and will also be running its implementation and auditing its outputs, a task the EFF describes as "both orwellian and sisyphean". The EFF also notes that "Users and advocates must reject FLoC and other misguided attempts to reinvent behavioral targeting."

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/duckduckgo-solutio...

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

Re: Opting Your Website Out of Google's FLoC Network

#72

Post by jahewson »

Has nobody bothered to read anything about FLoC?

The purpose of this permission is to prevent embedded third-party content from using FLoC. Besides that it’s a no-op.

FLoC does not track arbitrary websites, it tracks sites which retrieve the FLoC cohort via JS. So instead of dropping a unique third party cookie, and associating it with the data on the page, sites can now retrieve a k-anonymous cohort id and associate it with the data on the page. If you’re not doing that (or serving ads) there’s nothing you need to do.

That’s not to say that FLoC doesn’t deserve criticism just that most criticism I’ve encountered is not grounded in reality.

Re: Opting Your Website Out of Google's FLoC Network

#73

Post by radiator »

ehsankia wrote: post #63
dcow wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably things that promote a healthy internet also benefit website owners since their sites exist on the internet.

That sounds like people arguing that nuclear energy is a bad solution to climate change because it's not perfect and technically not renewable. - 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

But even if it were so, what would be the problem if 95% of the internet wouldn't exist?

Re: Opting Your Website Out of Google's FLoC Network

#74

Post by aledalgrande »

jedwhite wrote: post #8

Add a simple header to block FLoC on your website (fortunately): `permissions-policy: interest-cohort=()` It's only deployed on a test set of Chrome browsers so far, and it does create a warning message on browsers that don't support it. [1] [1] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/66997942/error-with-perm... Edit to note support for blocking this!

That works until it breaks or Google deprecates it and then ooops, you're included in FLoC too! :/

Re: Opting Your Website Out of Google's FLoC Network

#75

Post by skinkestek »

izacus wrote: post #60
kerng wrote: post #57

Today I looked at the source code of Chrome where this is implemented, so I'd understand it better. It made me realize that there is indeed (of course) software engineers (meaning: people) working on this who actually write that code. Does a high salary justify working on such features, or are modern day software engineers more like factory workers? I think not because most software engineers have a choice. Been thin…

People around the world build machines that melt skin off of children in Middle East for quarter of that pay. Even in America. And they're proud of it too. Time to look outside of tech bubble perhaps?

> People around the world build machines that melt skin off of children in Middle East

There is a problem with that statement and I will try to highlight it by creating a couple more of the same:

- There are people working to build software to allow people to share child porn without getting caught (about Moxie and anyone working to bring e2e-encryption to the masses)

- there were people working in factories that created hammers that were used to crush peoples skulls in Cambodia

See where I am going?

Re: Opting Your Website Out of Google's FLoC Network

#77

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

pjerem wrote: post #38
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #31

Perhaps someone will set up a remote^1 web proxy that adds the suggested "Permissions-Policy: interest-cohort=()" HTTP header to disable FLoC. Browser extensions are great but there is nothing to stop Google from removing access to them through the Play Store at any time. 1. Another alternative is to run the proxy locally. I run a web proxy bound to the loopback.

That’s a lot of work when all you have to do is to switch to another browser.

The browser I use does not process Javascript or CSS. I therefore have to do nothing. :)

However, I would guess switching browsers is extremely unlikely for a great number of users. Google must know that. That is why they can do something like FLoC. They must know that not many users are going to switch browsers.

Re: Opting Your Website Out of Google's FLoC Network

#78

Post by ben174 »

wyager wrote: post #69
sanxiyn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web server software maintainers should enable the header by default. Bugs should be filed against those with the wrong default.

Web server software should absolutely not add a bunch of garbage to work around some ad company's shenanigans.

They shouldn't have to, but there are several examples of where it's the software author who has take action in order to put a stop to it.

Not an Apple fanboy, but Safari is a great example of software which has changed its default behavior to prevent creepy things from happening.

Re: Opting Your Website Out of Google's FLoC Network

#79

Post by noir_lord »

skinkestek wrote: post #75
izacus wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People around the world build machines that melt skin off of children in Middle East for quarter of that pay. Even in America. And they're proud of it too. Time to look outside of tech bubble perhaps?

> People around the world build machines that melt skin off of children in Middle East There is a problem with that statement and I will try to highlight it by creating a couple more of the same: - There are people working to build software to allow people to share child porn without getting caught (about Moxie and anyone working to bring e2e-encryption to the masses) - there were people working in factories that cre…

I see where you are going and OP's overly emotive language damaged the credibility of his point.

However not all technology/engineering is neutral even compared to other technology.

For example I made the decision years ago that there are some lines I won't cross for software development - one of them been gambling systems (even though they are quite lucrative) - (Note: I'm not saying they should be banned (that is not for me to say)) because morally I can't see an acceptable use that outweighs the bad.

Same with weapons systems (though of course one mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist).

Re: Opting Your Website Out of Google's FLoC Network

#80

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

skinkestek wrote: post #75
izacus wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People around the world build machines that melt skin off of children in Middle East for quarter of that pay. Even in America. And they're proud of it too. Time to look outside of tech bubble perhaps?

> People around the world build machines that melt skin off of children in Middle East There is a problem with that statement and I will try to highlight it by creating a couple more of the same: - There are people working to build software to allow people to share child porn without getting caught (about Moxie and anyone working to bring e2e-encryption to the masses) - there were people working in factories that cre…

Your examples refer to tools that are being misused, whereas weapons or tracking software is a negative for humanity precisely when they're working as intended
Post reply on HN