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

81–90 of 186 posts

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#81

Post by rudasn »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #37
marvinblum wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's stupid, but the only option we have right now if the user does not disable FLoC in Chrome. We also honor the DNT header btw :)

Chrome users should just run a local proxy that inserts the header for them.

So, I was experimenting with this concept yesterday but couldn't get it to work...

How do you set up a local proxy to do this kind of stuff? I got up to the point of changing request/response headers but couldn't manage to actually edit the data going through, esp when dealing with ssl (which is the point really, of ssl).

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#82

Post by ljm »

livre wrote: post #46
xnx wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. Good thread. Sounds like FloC is definitely more anonymous than third party cookies that are already in use today. There might are some hypothetical situations with FLoC where some information might be able to be inferred given sufficient data, but this is not trivial/direct like it is today.

I have my doubts about the "more anonymous" part, mainly because 3p cookies are constrained to a single browser on a single device and can be easily erased or blocked, but your browsing habits that will land you on a certain cohort will remain the same across devices so you could technically be tracked cross-device even if you don't sync your browsing history or cookies (if I am reading right the way FLoC works). Qui…

Not to mention that this only really makes it more difficult for businesses who haven't already infected the web with things like social media buttons, widgets, or analytics scripts.

Neither Facebook nor Google require third party cookies to function, and I doubt FLoC would make any difference when they can already slurp up so much data that is voluntarily provided by other people without your consent (your address book, for example). Google even goes one step further by connecting your Google account directly to the browser, but there's also a reason why your Facebook login will never expire unless you force it to.

This whole thing feels like paying lip-service to privacy to keep people distracted from the reality that a cadre of 90s/00s tech giants have essentially usurped the web.

Most people on the internet use a web browser developed by a search engine company that evolved into a faceless advertising giant, after all.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#83

Post by tristan957 »

quaffapint wrote: post #21
JKCalhoun wrote: post #3

Just have it default-off, allow the user to turn it on if they want to be "ad targeted". I mean I keep hearing how, as a consumer, I want this.

I've spoken with more than 1 non-tech person who has said if they're going to see ads, they want them to be at least relevant, targeting nor not.

There is no evidence tracking-based ads are more fruitful than contextual ads. That is what you should tell your non-tech person.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#84

Post by sixothree »

oh_sigh wrote: post #60
NotPractical wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When 3rd party cookies are gone, we won't need floc either!

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#85

Post by SwiftyBug »

pdq wrote: post #23
soared wrote: post #9

These browsers make up less than 4% of market share and their actions are largely meaningless. Only fringe users (IE readers of hackernews) use these browsers. If you're looking for info on adtech changes outside of chrome, look at safari. Apple has been making big pro-privacy moves for a couple years, and they actually have meaningful market share.

Safari is the browser for iOS, so your 4% number is not accurate.

Not only the browser for iOS, but the only browser that run on iOS.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#86

Post by syntactic-sugar »

Google234 wrote: post #70
coldpie wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CPM price for targeted ads is lot more than untargeted ads. Only because they're viewed. If we can get everyone to install an ad blocker, that price will plummet, and business models that aren't based on abusing users will be allowed to succeed.

If that happens many many websites won’t be able to operate for free like they do now.

I'm still not convinced that's a bad thing. Does this not ensure profitable sites will be around because they provide enough value to their users to charge a fee, everything else will be stuff like passion projects.

I really just feel that 1. Advertising is manipulative and evil in its' modern form, and 2. Targeting further multiplies its' ability to do evil.

I'm not convinced that what we receive in exchange for empowering 1 and 2 is in any way worth it.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#87

Post by vbezhenar »

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'm minority as well, as I think that targeted ads are important for the Internet.

First of all, I think that ads in the Internet are important, it's a driving force. Without ads there will be no Internet with lots of "free" resources, everything valuable will be paywalled which is a problem for poor people and nuisance for the rest. That's already an issue for many information websites because of abundant adblock usage and those websites are paywalling their articles.

If ad is not targeted, you'll get terrible click rate for niche ads. So your advertisement budget will cost more and some businesses just won't work, as you won't be able to attract enough customers for reasonable budget. Another issue is that advertisement budgets are paid by customers and inefficient advertisement lead to higher costs of the end product.

It's basically like TV where ads cost a lot and small players just can't afford it. And that's because those ads can't be targeted.

Because of mentioned issues, I think that targeted ads are needed for the Internet, they're making world a better place in the end.

Google clearly tries to find a balance between privacy and ads targeting. And that's a good thing. May be FLOC is not perfect, although I'm not sure if it could be implemented in a significantly better way. But just disregarding targeted ads for me sounds like a wrong solution. What should be done is regulation of advertisement platforms which should be prohibited by law to track individual users and just use anonymized information, voluntarily provided by the user agent.

And those who don't like FLOC idea, probably will be able to use browser extensions to modify its behaviour.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#88

Post by drusepth »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #48
drusepth wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a consumer, I want targeting features default-on, but I also don't mind too much having to turn them on manually.

why do you want them default on?

I'd guess the majority of people don't hold a strong opinion on them one way or the other, and being default-on for more people results in more data that can be used to make ads more relevant for everyone, instead of just relying on whatever subset of users actually know to opt in.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#89

Post by jefftk »

danShumway wrote: post #68
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.

> if it would hasten the demise of 3rd party cookies Will FLoC speed this up? As far as I know, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari are already largely publicly committed to phasing out 3rd party cookies over the next couple years. I guess FLoC might move that deadline up a bit? But I suspect some critics of FLoC are looking at the proposal as a compromise that we don't need to make. The thinking is, at the point where we ha…

> Will FLoC speed this up?

If you look back at Chrome's original announcement about phasing out third-party cookies, they are explicit about replacements like FLoC being how it happens:

"After initial dialogue with the web community, we are confident that with continued iteration and feedback, privacy-preserving and open-standard mechanisms like the Privacy Sandbox can sustain a healthy, ad-supported web in a way that will render third-party cookies obsolete. Once these approaches have addressed the needs of users, publishers, and advertisers, and we have developed the tools to mitigate workarounds, we plan to phase out support for third-party cookies in Chrome. Our intention is to do this within two years." -- https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-...

(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)

Post reply on HN