Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well that's incorrect. I only use Firefox at home. Works fantastic.
I'm not saying it's bad (FreeBSD is good too), but there's no denying it's pushing itself into a niche corner.
What niche corner might that be?
Nobody is joining Google's FLoC
171–180 of 186 posts
Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC
#172Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC
#173As a website owner, you can opt out by setting the Permissions-Policy header to "interest-cohort=()". I rolled that out for pirsch.io today.
How about sending random awkward cohorts to the browser ? If we are able to make targeted ads to be only about dildos and viagra, maybe we can increase Adblock usage drastically ? (While helping people with real erecting issues as a side effect)
If FLoC ever becomes standard in Chrome, I'm definitely going to search for a way to sabotage their statistics by giving fake or random data points.
Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC
#174Rant ON. Third party cookies are surveillance tech. So is FLoC. There is no need to track a person from one web site to another like some stalker. Any tech to stalk people like this isn't a good idea in general. This is antithesis to multiple business models. I know. But I see no reason to accomodate faulty models. Ironically however, I'm not against advertising. But my experience with targeted ads is that they are u…
Whether targeted ads work well from a user perspective is irrelevant to Google and FB. These companies only care about whether their ad tech can drive user engagement in such a way that advertisers think targeted ads work well. After all, the advertisers are paying the bills.
If I was a paying advertiser I'd be angry that customers didn't know about my internet business, especially when the customer buys 10k in parts from a bunch of other suppliers and not me.
Its advertisers that should be angry.
Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'm minority as well, as I think that targeted ads are important for the Internet. Citation required. Not one Ad was required for the Internet to be useful. Hell, the WWW started as a bunch of hobbyists sharing info about what they liked. Google's killer product their search index. Not Ads. I don't need to pay anyone for me to host something aside from the domain name, and a connection to an ISP. I just have to want…
You're requiring a citation of a person's thoughts?
Well the internet was a lot more useful, and pleasurable, before targeted ads were a thing. So I’d quite like to know how you came to that conclusion as well
Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
What niche corner might that be?
A poor imitation of Google Chrome. Firefox could go off in it's own direction, but it doesn't.
Hardly. It’s been around for longer than Chrome, and Chrome has copied many of its features.
In terms of what it does well, it’s far better than Chrome. Fencing alone makes it better for almost everyone.
Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say that like there's another option.
And what's Firefox, chopped liver?
Isn't it? Marketshare is cratering, it's not keeping up with Chromium and Safari, and the Mozilla foundation is the poster child for dysfunctional organizations. Thank god it looks like Rust has escape from Mozilla and how has a nice support network of its own.
Do you honestly see any signs of Firefox's situation getting better and not continuing its free fall?
Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anonymous web makes sense. The very idea that we need an ad profile that follows us as we traverse the web is ridiculous. Contextual advertising works. Visit a popular website covering PC hardware .. and advertisers can pay to put ads to parts, chips, cases, etc. Visit a website that covers hiking trails and companies can purchase ads for camping gear, travel lodging, etc. The very notion that it should be normal for…
At this point, I think it's become a "too big to fail" argument for the industry. We have several near-trillion-dollar companies that basically have no viable business model other than doubling down on targeted advertising. If third-party cookies get demonized or GDPR'd to death, they need to pivot to SOMETHING else that still fits into the same profiling paradigm. I suspect it's not about results or innovation anymo…
I understand your point. Though when email campaigns came out the goal was to send the email to everyone. Then it was to target people. I think that targeted emailing obsession then led to the natural conclusion of targeted adverts on the web through personalisation. I'm not sure the ROI on the adverts is what companies think it is. Just like it isn't for email campaigns.
I feel there may be a better market like roody15 has said for contextual analysis of websites and provide adverts based on that. Enhanced with Anon user traffic and buy paths. Which could slowly overtake if done well.
Also on the effectiveness: https://thecorrespondent.com/100/the-new-dot-com-bubble-is-h... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21465873
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/16/facebook-lured-advert... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18234626
Then if you cross reference this with how procurement works, bullshit jobs and similar (can't find that article) starts to make some sense.
Though there may be arguments such as manipulation as to why the focus is on the advert personalisation and not the nefarious things that can come out of it. Think McCarthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Blacklists
Regardless of your persuasion consider if the other side gets in and you end up on the black list.
'I don't mind adverts tracking me' vs 'I can't get a job because of X opinion'
Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?)
Is content-based targeting really so much less effective than user-based, or is this more of an arms race between ad providers where even a small difference gives them a large edge? Youtube doesn't need to know someone is a snowboarder in order to show them snowboarding-related ads. They can just show those ads on snowboarding videos and they don't need to invade the user's privacy to do that. The targeting is not as accurate, but it's how ads have basically always worked, how they worked on the internet before the ad networks and tracking, and how they still work in other media.
Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your “cut” is having a place to store, view, and share your cat photos online. The web only has two business models: users pay for a service or advertisers pay for a service. I’m all in favor of paying for services, but it turns out most people prefer ads to breaking out their wallet.
This always gets said, and I don't exactly think it's untrue, but it carries this strong implication that the problem is that people are too cheap to pay. And I'm not sure that's entirely true. My own pet theory is that - payment method and model issues aside - the largest contributor is the uncomfortable questions it makes us ask ourselves. When you pay for something, you ask yourself if whatever you are buying is a…
The social media services like us to think the users (people with the pictures of kittens) don't add any value individually. The let us believe that it's the network effect, plus their infrastructure, that is the value, and because those wouldn't exist without the service, that is what generates revenue. But of course individual users add value. Without people sharing their kitten pictures, there'd be no network, no content, worth selling ads around.
For ad-supported social media, we're all just unpaid labor and we're told that labor has no value anyway.
Of course, by selling that position, they've also convinced the end user that the service is not worth paying for. But when there's nothing the end user wants to pay for, and ad revenue drying up, social media services will have to pivot to make money elsewhere.
The end result, not surprisingly, will result in a mixed model of subscription and ad revenue supporting content that the service has, in some way, paid for. Sound familiar? Of course, the end user will still not be paid for the labor contributed, but then the less the ad revenue depends on the user-generated "free" content, the closer the value of that labor tends to zero.