Trying to block this is a losing battle. The whole privacy-first angle is so disingenuous, too. Is there a way we can just obfuscate / ruin our data with them? Like a tool or browser extension I can run that clicks / visits a bunch of random links and totally trashes which "cohort" Google thinks I belong in. I'd pay for this more than paying to opt-out. Then serve me all the ads you want.
Amazon is blocking Google’s FLoC
111–120 of 249 posts
Re: Amazon is blocking Google’s FLoC
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blocking FLoC is as easy as adding this header to the HTTP response: Permissions-Policy: interest-cohort=() Source: https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/issues/3209628
>Blocking FLoC is as easy as adding this header to the HTTP response: That's "easy"?! How does my mom do that for her WordPress site?
Wordpress is doing it as a minor release, and backporting it. So it'll be opt-in to floc for all wordpress sites.
Re: Amazon is blocking Google’s FLoC
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you block it?
Blocking FLoC is as easy as adding this header to the HTTP response: Permissions-Policy: interest-cohort=() Source: https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/issues/3209628
I don't see any of the sites mentioned actually doing that in their head. Can someone point me to how they're actually blocked?
edit: ahhh i see it's in the http headers, not the head of the html. nvm.
Re: Amazon is blocking Google’s FLoC
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Careful, google bans Web extensions that interferes with ads (AdNaseum). Only problem is ad blockers got too popular before they made Chrome.
I’m assuming you means from Chrome’s extension store (not sure why they call it) While they can be installed manually with extra steps, there are also other browsers out there.
They've made it so you basically can't keep non Chrome store extensions installed on Windows. At least not without a nag every day.
Re: Amazon is blocking Google’s FLoC
#115What I don't get about the reporting on this topic: Isn't all this opt-out stuff just necessary while Google is testing FLoC and it'll be opt-in(!) after it leaves Origin Trial phase? Or is this Google employee straight up lying* here? https://twitter.com/Log3overLog2/status/1384337637763387394?... * I don't suspect he his.
I don't think he's straight up lying, but I do think the truth is probably more than what he's saying. Like perhaps using AdSense, Google Analytics, Google Sign In, etc, will include a buried implied "opt in" for your site at some point. Google is quite good at rolling out changes slowly enough to spread out any outrage. Watching the progression of ads take over their SERP pages, it was very slow and subtle. No ads,…
I'm also curious how much info Google will choose to expose to Floc on their various sites. Within Gmail, for example, they could be very generous to other advertisers, or not. They already have the info, so I assume they could only expose a cohort interest of "email" if they wanted to.
The floc repo currently says "The algorithms might be based on the URLs of the visited sites, on the content of those pages, or other factors." Which is not super helpful. It seems like Google could fairly easily hide info from Floc since they own both sides.
Re: Amazon is blocking Google’s FLoC
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, wait. We add this into the headers, and just expect Chrome to respect it?
Reminds me of when people naively expected "Do Not Track" to be respected lol
I've seen people say dnt could be ignored because it's off by default in some configurations(safari), and user did not make a choice. Would be interesting to see what kind of mental gymnastics these people would apply here to ignore user's opinion.
Re: Amazon is blocking Google’s FLoC
#117Wow, the bias in this article is unbelievably blatant: "[Amazon is] preventing Google’s tracking system FLoC — or Federated Learning of Cohorts — from gathering valuable data reflecting the products people research in Amazon’s vast e-commerce universe" Compare with, e.g.: "Amazon is taking steps to protect its user's privacy by blocking Google's heavy-handed overreach in leveraging its Chrome browser to spy on user's…
Isn't FLoC on-device? So 'gathering valuable data' would be users' own devices doing so, right?
Re: Amazon is blocking Google’s FLoC
#118This is a great example of why Google FLoC is not incentive-compatible with consumers nor business owners. Amazon (like Facebook) has a monopoly on ad targeting on their target properties—- properties they own. Google FLoC is Google’s attempt to (further) monopolize their target properties—- the web at large, which Google does NOT own. Google does NOT pay to service the traffic they generate. Google does NOT pay to f…
Why would Google have to pay Wikipedia?
Re: Amazon is blocking Google’s FLoC
#119This is a great example of why Google FLoC is not incentive-compatible with consumers nor business owners. Amazon (like Facebook) has a monopoly on ad targeting on their target properties—- properties they own. Google FLoC is Google’s attempt to (further) monopolize their target properties—- the web at large, which Google does NOT own. Google does NOT pay to service the traffic they generate. Google does NOT pay to f…
Google's investments in the web has been massive. Your whole framing can be flipped on its head be pointing out that Google, unlike Amazon has been willing to make such huge investments in the one public platform we've got.
Obviously Google does it for self interested reasons, but thank goodness they do - you can hate Google and targeted ads all you want but without Google pushing web and ad tech forward it would stand little chance against the competing proprietary platforms.
Your suggestion that Google pay sites for the traffic they generate should like that ridiculous News Corp/Australian shakedown of Facebook and Google, which people were only able to justify based on their hatred of the target companies and a willingness to sacrifice the web to their ends.
Re: Amazon is blocking Google’s FLoC
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of when people naively expected "Do Not Track" to be respected lol
I've seen people say dnt could be ignored because it's off by default in some configurations(safari), and user did not make a choice. Would be interesting to see what kind of mental gymnastics these people would apply here to ignore user's opinion.
Yep. Microsoft enabling it by default in IE10 was the default excuse for most of the advertisement industry to never start respecting it.