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

71–80 of 167 posts

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#71

Post by google234123 »

olliej wrote: post #69

FLoC is inherently anti-user, it serves literally no purpose other than to support tracking, while breaking all current anti-tracking tech by mandating its user across domains (a nice solid break of Same Origin policy). That it came from google is hardly surprising, as they are hell bent on stealing every bit of information they can from everyone, whether or not that person has a relationship with them, let alone con…

Removing effective ads from the internet would be even more anti user. I dont think most people will be happy when everything is paywalled effectively.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#72

Post by google234123 »

p49k wrote: post #43
jedberg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm defining good as "informing of things I didn't know existed". I consider advertising just another news channel. Copying from my comment above, here are some examples of things I've bought. I like trying out new things because I can afford it, but I don't always have time to go out and look for them. So examples of things that I've bought from Instagram ads: The comma2 (autopilot for my Honda van). I knew OpenPilo…

The end doesn’t justify the means. Finding out about some cool stuff doesn’t justify the insane amount of collection of ones personal data by hundreds of companies in a manner which is basically impossible for a person to reasonably prevent.

An internet with no ads will have much less content.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#73

Post by mavhc »

p49k wrote: post #43
jedberg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm defining good as "informing of things I didn't know existed". I consider advertising just another news channel. Copying from my comment above, here are some examples of things I've bought. I like trying out new things because I can afford it, but I don't always have time to go out and look for them. So examples of things that I've bought from Instagram ads: The comma2 (autopilot for my Honda van). I knew OpenPilo…

The end doesn’t justify the means. Finding out about some cool stuff doesn’t justify the insane amount of collection of ones personal data by hundreds of companies in a manner which is basically impossible for a person to reasonably prevent.

OK, so someone has "my data", ie a partial list of websites I may have visited. Now what? What harm has been caused to me?

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#75

Post by olliej »

google234123 wrote: post #71
olliej wrote: post #69

FLoC is inherently anti-user, it serves literally no purpose other than to support tracking, while breaking all current anti-tracking tech by mandating its user across domains (a nice solid break of Same Origin policy). That it came from google is hardly surprising, as they are hell bent on stealing every bit of information they can from everyone, whether or not that person has a relationship with them, let alone con…

Removing effective ads from the internet would be even more anti user. I dont think most people will be happy when everything is paywalled effectively.

The abusive tracking hasn't made ads more effective. I mean it means advertisers spend more paying for bigger and noisier ads sure, but that's also anti-user.

There's also nothing stopping ads from being relevant, when google started AdWords (when "don't be evil" was still a thing) you got useful ads based on what you were actually looking at. Now you getting nothing but repeat ads for something you searched for last week.

that relevant ads requires spying and abuse is nonsense, and google's original destruction of the ad tech industry demonstrated that non-spying ads that were based on page content were more than effective enough.

Of course your uid implies that at best you're a pro-google fan, if not an actual employee, so I don't see me convincing you of anything.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#76

Post by dmitriid »

aboringusername wrote: post #17

It's really a genius level move by Google here. Get rid of the cookie, implement your own solution, make it seem somewhat unique and rely on other data to identify users and claim impunity since it's nothing to do with them. So how about this, Google must not, and cannot implement FLOC without it being a cross-browser standard; that is to say if anyone of Microsoft, Apple or Mozilla veto FLOC, it's dead. This is how…

> So how about this, Google must not, and cannot implement FLOC without it being a cross-browser standard; that is to say if anyone of Microsoft, Apple or Mozilla veto FLOC, it's dead.

Google couldn't care less about "cross-browser standards". They've been ramming Google-designed and Google-authored "standards" through standards bodies for years now, and increasingly disregard any objections from other browser implementors. And, sadly, there are only two browser implementors left that have any relevance: Safari and Firefox.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#77

Post by alpaca128 »

smoldesu wrote: post #51
throwaway2048 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Personalised ads imply data collection, privacy violations and tracking across websites. That doesn't sound like a good deal. Especially as personalised ads are just as annoying and unhelpful because the algorithms are simply useless. No, when I bought a game I don't want to buy the Collector's Edition one day later. And that won't change over the 3 months I'm getting the same stupid recommendation. Might as well show me literally a random product, I'd be more likely to buy it.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#78

Post by CrazedGeek »

mavhc wrote: post #70
wearywanderer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising is linked to depression, body dysmorphic disorders like anorexia, and numerous other adverse mental conditions. The advertising industry has a whole lot of blood on their hands. This is an industry that doesn't think twice about exploiting people's feelings of vulnerability or isolation to help sell products. The more vulnerable the demographic, the more abusive the advertising industry gets. Just look at…

On the plus side it gives free information to billions of people, now everyone can have free gps maps, email, websites

It’s not free if you’re paying with your health.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#79

Post by bingidingi »

smoldesu wrote: post #51
throwaway2048 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I understand the reasoning, but I prefer schlock versus the cross-site data required to serve me personalized ads.

With the internet at our disposal I don't understand why anyone would ever click on an ad. If you need or want something, a quick search on even the worst search engine is outrageously more informative.

Post reply on HN