101–110 of 264 posts
I think I will just block Chrome users from my websites
That's interesting and ethical by providing suggestions as alternatives! I'd be interested too, but I can't find much on the web... do you guys have any instructions/link?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
Weapons stopped Hitler. Weapons stopped USSR. Weapons stop US. Weapons stop todays Russia.
Weapons are tools too. Mostly to scare away an attacker before they strike but sadly sometimes also to strike back.
Double sadly they also come with the possibility to strike first.
But in the choice of us being armed and Russia and China and the middle East being armed or everyone being armed except us I take the first option. Every time.
Edit to add: modern weapons are actually about reducing the chance the skin is melting of children.
It is fully possible to think that your country should have access to the best conventional weapons possibly while still voting for politicians that want us to stop weapons sales to madmen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dirty of google to hide behind “web.dev” and not make it front and center clear this is a google property.
They own the entire .dev gTLD namespace - they aren't hiding it, but it's probably not common knowledge. I am not defending Google behavior, I have no dog in this fight, just sharing. In fact, there was a weird behavior I detected inadvertently last year 2 employers ago where I couldn't load any .dev public internet sites due to preloaded rules that hadn't been updated since before the .dev gTLD was publicly availabl…
Let me get this straight: even if my site has no ads or trackers, Chrome will now use my visitors data for advertising and surveillance??? Does anyone else see FLoC as worse than the current state we're in?
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…
Also link to that source code mentioned: https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/master:c...
Let me get this straight: even if my site has no ads or trackers, Chrome will now use my visitors data for advertising and surveillance??? Does anyone else see FLoC as worse than the current state we're in?
It seems not. The FLoC page ( https://web.dev/floc/ ) says: > For pages that haven't been excluded, a page visit will be included in the browser's FLoC calculation if document.interestCohort() is used on the page. During the current FLoC origin trial, a page will also be included in the calculation if Chrome detects that the page load ads or ads-related resources.
Let me guess, “ads-related resources” are not defined, but in a court case in 5-10 years time it’ll be accidentally revealed that internally Google considers this to include “JavaScript, css, or HTML files”...
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.
Yeah, but that is only necessary if the page contains ads or ads-related resources, right? That’s how I interpret the previous quote.
Is it way to cynical to think that coming from the worlds largest advertising company that can’t mean anything except “monetizable web content”...
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.
So yes, controlling how that number is calculated is infinitely more control than reading it.
Having to explicitly opt out regardless of what you do is terrible. So now you're telling me that I have consciously disable it every time I create a new website/page? How do we force Google to stop this?