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

Privacy Analysis of FLoC

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 167 posts

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#51

Post by smoldesu »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #26
jedberg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like personalized ads. If I have to suffer with ads to support the websites I like, I'd rather have them personalized. Instagram is really good at this -- I probably click on at least 1/4 of the ads I get, and have definitely made purchases based on Instagram ads. So as a user, the benefit would be better ads. Honestly I'll probably leave FLOC on if given the option (although I use Firefox and Safari, and as far as…

HN is the only place on the internet I've seen people expound their love for personalized advertising.

It's more of a hierarchy, to me. I prefer no ads, but I'd rather have personalized ones than the raunchy shlock they serve you if you're a "nobody".

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#52

Post by saurik »

jedberg wrote: post #47
j_wtf_all_taken wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd just be nice to have a little more control, for starters. So advertisers try to figure out what we want by what websites we visit and are not too good at it. They could also just ... ask? I'd like to have an ad service that I can tell what I'm actually interested in these days, and that forces the companies to provide lots of information about the product they are advertising for (documentation and stuff). So if…

Unfortunately asking users doesn't usually work out well. My favorite example is from Netflix. They asked users, "What movie needs to be on the service for you to consider it a good service with good movies that you would want to see repeatedly". A lot of people answered "Schindler's list". But when you looked at those same user's actual viewing, they never once watched Schindler's list, but they watch Jackass multip…

FWIW, I feel like a good restaurant serves wine. I don't drink wine, but if your restaurant doesn't serve it, and I am tasked with choosing between two restaurants based on some quick glance at their menu sections and photos of their interior (as of course I am not informed about either: I am supposed to come up with some quick heuristic), it might not matter if you have the world's best hamburger (what I am actually going to order at your fancy restaurant, along with a glass of plain soda water, as I am a philistine). So I dunno: that could still be consistent, given the question phrased the way you did.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#53

Post by wearywanderer »

freebuju wrote: post #9
tylersmith wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the number 1 reason it should be the default.

Not happening. All those anti-tracking measures break websites more often than not.

That is flat wrong in my experience. I browse with javascript and CSS both disabled by default, using uMatrix. Only a minority of sites I browse require me to whitelist JS or CSS; maybe 1-in-10. Most newspapers and blogs do not require JS or CSS.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#54

Post by saurik »

jedberg wrote: post #23
justinplouffe wrote: post #12

What bothers me the most about FLOC is that there is no reason or advantage for me as a user to run it unless I'm forced to. Cookies, even if they get hijacked for tracking, are genuinely useful to persist state and having them on results in a better experience. Even in the case of something more invasive like DRM/EME, I might want to turn it on in exchange to be able to watch some new show on a streaming service. Tu…

I like personalized ads. If I have to suffer with ads to support the websites I like, I'd rather have them personalized. Instagram is really good at this -- I probably click on at least 1/4 of the ads I get, and have definitely made purchases based on Instagram ads. So as a user, the benefit would be better ads. Honestly I'll probably leave FLOC on if given the option (although I use Firefox and Safari, and as far as…

FWIW, I am "personally" sick of the Internet reminding me of the thing I already bought yesterday, along with doubling down on ads for things I only engage with because I want to show my friends how stupid the ad/product is, which seems to be the state of the art of "personalized" Internet ads. I would honestly get more value--if I am forced to see ads--out of less personalized ads.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KbKdKcGJ4tM ever

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#55

Post by giantrobot »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #26
jedberg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like personalized ads. If I have to suffer with ads to support the websites I like, I'd rather have them personalized. Instagram is really good at this -- I probably click on at least 1/4 of the ads I get, and have definitely made purchases based on Instagram ads. So as a user, the benefit would be better ads. Honestly I'll probably leave FLOC on if given the option (although I use Firefox and Safari, and as far as…

HN is the only place on the internet I've seen people expound their love for personalized advertising.

I don't mind the concept of ads. I didn't really mind early ads on the web. They were a lot like magazine ads, the website owners would run ads in the same broad interest category as their site. Then early AdTech happened and went fucking insane. Google's early text ads, before the DoubleCkick reverse takeover, were a sane reaction to insane web ads. Google's ads too went insane.

Now ads aren't just ads but crazy tracking mechanisms. Because of the opaque system of ad brokers they're also a malware vector because no one vets anything because money. They also very helpfully push me towards monthly data caps by loading megabytes of extra scripts on every page load and things like auto-playing videos.

So while I don't mind advertising conceptually, fuck ads and AdTech. I do everything possible to block ads just to make browsing usable, to say nothing of privacy or malware. I just hit the good ol' Back button whenever I get a "disable your adblocker" message. Disabling ad blocking doesn't just mean I see ads, it means I can barely read a web page and have to run megabytes of scripts that do who knows what.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#56

Post by smoldesu »

tomrod wrote: post #18

FLoC: micro market segmentation. Profiles versus data. It requires on 33 bits to uniquely identify an individual. [0]. I would be interested to learn whether FLoC employed k-anonymity measures, and their report on it. If I am retired, female, live in the 830* zip3, and own a sedan, it is probably hard to identify me. Add that I am Korean and am searching for thyroid cancer treatments on Tuesday at 8:43AM local, then…

The article you linked relies on low-precision guessing that only reduces the entropy in the system, but doesn't eliminate it. No reasonable jury would consider their 33 bits to be "uniquely identifiable".

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#57

Post by driverdan »

jedberg wrote: post #23
justinplouffe wrote: post #12

What bothers me the most about FLOC is that there is no reason or advantage for me as a user to run it unless I'm forced to. Cookies, even if they get hijacked for tracking, are genuinely useful to persist state and having them on results in a better experience. Even in the case of something more invasive like DRM/EME, I might want to turn it on in exchange to be able to watch some new show on a streaming service. Tu…

I like personalized ads. If I have to suffer with ads to support the websites I like, I'd rather have them personalized. Instagram is really good at this -- I probably click on at least 1/4 of the ads I get, and have definitely made purchases based on Instagram ads. So as a user, the benefit would be better ads. Honestly I'll probably leave FLOC on if given the option (although I use Firefox and Safari, and as far as…

> If I have to suffer with ads to support the websites I like

You don't. Use an adblocker and be done with them.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#58

Post by j_wtf_all_taken »

jedberg wrote: post #47
j_wtf_all_taken wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd just be nice to have a little more control, for starters. So advertisers try to figure out what we want by what websites we visit and are not too good at it. They could also just ... ask? I'd like to have an ad service that I can tell what I'm actually interested in these days, and that forces the companies to provide lots of information about the product they are advertising for (documentation and stuff). So if…

Unfortunately asking users doesn't usually work out well. My favorite example is from Netflix. They asked users, "What movie needs to be on the service for you to consider it a good service with good movies that you would want to see repeatedly". A lot of people answered "Schindler's list". But when you looked at those same user's actual viewing, they never once watched Schindler's list, but they watch Jackass multip…

Yeah the difference between the things we know we should want, and the things we actually want in the moment. Its incredible in how many ways the brain can be annoying ;-)

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#59

Post by badsectoracula »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #26
jedberg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like personalized ads. If I have to suffer with ads to support the websites I like, I'd rather have them personalized. Instagram is really good at this -- I probably click on at least 1/4 of the ads I get, and have definitely made purchases based on Instagram ads. So as a user, the benefit would be better ads. Honestly I'll probably leave FLOC on if given the option (although I use Firefox and Safari, and as far as…

HN is the only place on the internet I've seen people expound their love for personalized advertising.

I used to like the idea many years ago (think 10-15 or so) since if i'm going to see ads might as well have them be about stuff that interest me - which can actually be useful now and then.

But the thing is, what i wanted was for Google to let me actually choose what sort of ads i see, not try to guess.

Nowadays i just use an adblocker.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#60

Post by neolog »

jedberg wrote: post #37
leipert wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I just dislike ads altogether. Especially Instagram feels very manipulative. So far nothing we have bought based on Instagram or Facebook ads has been useful in the long run. Personally I prefer to either have a need for something (I want to solve problem X) and do some research based off of that. Or I share an experience with a friend where they make a recommendation. Funniest Facebook ad by the way: I…

I dislike ads too. I'd rather just pay to use the sites. But I also understand not everyone can afford that. The ads are there for them. So examples of things that I've bought from Instagram ads: The most recent Pride lego set. I would have never known it existed, but I'm glad I know now, because I want to give my kids something fun to build that sparks a conversation about Pride and what it means and why it's import…

Are there many people who can't afford to pay for a pageview but can afford the product being advertised on that page?
Post reply on HN