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

Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 186 posts

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#51

Post by xnx »

mpol wrote: post #47
xnx wrote: post #33

I'm definitely in the minority of commenters on these FLoC threads. I hate that 3rd party cookies exist, and support FLoC if it would hasten the demise of 3rd party cookies. It seems like many consider the alternative to FLoC to be an anonymous web where content can be accessed without login. The migration of content into walled gardens like Instagram seems more likely to me.

Third party cookies are already on the way out, allthough it is going very slowly. But if that is already happening, I see no reason to replace it with something that is going to stay and is only slightly better. Being patient is easier and better, it will be a question of a few years I suppose, instead of, I don't know, forever? :)

Content providers want third party cookies. Users have no idea what third party cookies are. Any deprecation of third party cookies will have to come from the user-agent (Safari and Chrome being the only ones that matter).

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#53

Post by glsdfgkjsklfj »

mpol wrote: post #47
xnx wrote: post #33

I'm definitely in the minority of commenters on these FLoC threads. I hate that 3rd party cookies exist, and support FLoC if it would hasten the demise of 3rd party cookies. It seems like many consider the alternative to FLoC to be an anonymous web where content can be accessed without login. The migration of content into walled gardens like Instagram seems more likely to me.

Third party cookies are already on the way out, allthough it is going very slowly. But if that is already happening, I see no reason to replace it with something that is going to stay and is only slightly better. Being patient is easier and better, it will be a question of a few years I suppose, instead of, I don't know, forever? :)

This!

All the clueless/guerrilla marketing(?) people defending FLoC/(faux de-)CentralizedIDs as an either-or choice for getting rid of 3rd party cookies are disingenuously or maliciously trying to steer the discussion to the wrong direction.

None of that is a requirement to get rid of 3rd party cookie! just like Microsoft Silverlight was not a requirement to get rid of Adobe Flash, no matter how much microsoft employees wanted you to believe that.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#54

Post by glsdfgkjsklfj »

xnx wrote: post #51
mpol wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Third party cookies are already on the way out, allthough it is going very slowly. But if that is already happening, I see no reason to replace it with something that is going to stay and is only slightly better. Being patient is easier and better, it will be a question of a few years I suppose, instead of, I don't know, forever? :)

Content providers want third party cookies. Users have no idea what third party cookies are. Any deprecation of third party cookies will have to come from the user-agent (Safari and Chrome being the only ones that matter).

Yes.

And it is exactly what is happening just fine. Thank you very much.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#55

Post by SimeVidas »

xnx wrote: post #33

I'm definitely in the minority of commenters on these FLoC threads. I hate that 3rd party cookies exist, and support FLoC if it would hasten the demise of 3rd party cookies. It seems like many consider the alternative to FLoC to be an anonymous web where content can be accessed without login. The migration of content into walled gardens like Instagram seems more likely to me.

What’s wrong with just showing normal ads like we had for over 100 years? Is tracking really needed to prevent walled gardens?

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#56

Post by henriquez »

blacktriangle wrote: post #30
acheron wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using any version of Chromium still contributes to Google’s attempts to destroy the web. If they actually cared they would use a different engine.

You say that like there's another option.

Firefox is a good option!

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#57

Post by NotPractical »

xnx wrote: post #33

I'm definitely in the minority of commenters on these FLoC threads. I hate that 3rd party cookies exist, and support FLoC if it would hasten the demise of 3rd party cookies. It seems like many consider the alternative to FLoC to be an anonymous web where content can be accessed without login. The migration of content into walled gardens like Instagram seems more likely to me.

I think it's probably naive to assume that, if FLoC was implemented, advertisers would just stop using their existing tracking technologies, which allow for better tracking than FLoC offers. I imagine most would continue to use these, plus FLoC.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#58

Post by xnx »

NotPractical wrote: post #57
xnx wrote: post #33

I'm definitely in the minority of commenters on these FLoC threads. I hate that 3rd party cookies exist, and support FLoC if it would hasten the demise of 3rd party cookies. It seems like many consider the alternative to FLoC to be an anonymous web where content can be accessed without login. The migration of content into walled gardens like Instagram seems more likely to me.

I think it's probably naive to assume that, if FLoC was implemented, advertisers would just stop using their existing tracking technologies, which allow for better tracking than FLoC offers. I imagine most would continue to use these, plus FLoC.

Advertisers will not have the option to use third party cookies when they are disabled by default in Chrome (what Google is working toward).

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#59

Post by gopi »

SimeVidas wrote: post #55
xnx wrote: post #33

I'm definitely in the minority of commenters on these FLoC threads. I hate that 3rd party cookies exist, and support FLoC if it would hasten the demise of 3rd party cookies. It seems like many consider the alternative to FLoC to be an anonymous web where content can be accessed without login. The migration of content into walled gardens like Instagram seems more likely to me.

What’s wrong with just showing normal ads like we had for over 100 years? Is tracking really needed to prevent walled gardens?

CPM price for targeted ads is lot more than untargeted ads. So likely the publishers will increase the number of ads per page to maintain the same eCPM yield. Also the ads will optimize for top of the funnel (clicks) than bottom (conversion). So we will start to see aggressive & intrusive ads. (remember the "punch the monkey" ads from the early 2000s?)

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#60

Post by oh_sigh »

NotPractical wrote: post #57
xnx wrote: post #33

I'm definitely in the minority of commenters on these FLoC threads. I hate that 3rd party cookies exist, and support FLoC if it would hasten the demise of 3rd party cookies. It seems like many consider the alternative to FLoC to be an anonymous web where content can be accessed without login. The migration of content into walled gardens like Instagram seems more likely to me.

I think it's probably naive to assume that, if FLoC was implemented, advertisers would just stop using their existing tracking technologies, which allow for better tracking than FLoC offers. I imagine most would continue to use these, plus FLoC.

But the existing tracking technologies will be going away. 3rd party cookies soon enough will be blocked by default on the major browsers.
Post reply on HN