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

121–130 of 186 posts

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#121

Post by perryizgr8 »

chmod775 wrote: post #35
nonbirithm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I see FLoC is that it's nothing more than a compromise. This isn't a web standards feature like WebMIDI or WebHID that fulfills the (ever expanding) requests for features from web developers. It isn't a feature that the average user would ever ask for. It's simply a way for Google's ads business to continue functioning in spite of a web community that is gradually becoming privacy-conscious.

"Okay, it is true I can do nothing to force you to eat this pile of poo and I have nothing as means of payment, but let's make a compromise: How about you eat half?" How about no, Google? DRM made its way into browsers only barely, and in that case they at least had something people wanted.

> DRM made its way into browsers only barely, and in that case they at least had something people wanted.

What did DRM have that people wanted?

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#122

Post by cratermoon »

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…

It's really the other way around. Major browsers have decided to phase out 3rd party cookies (with some pressure from outside forces), so now advertisers are scrambling to find alternatives. Whether or not FLoC catches on is related to whether or not it's a good alternative -- there are others out there. It's not driving the demise of 3rd party cookies, but if 3rd party cookies become useless for targeted ads, then FLoC is one of the contenders to fill the space.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#123

Post by cratermoon »

mycall wrote: post #119
danShumway wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I could see ad agencies start to buy well-known https endpoints per client domain that makes 3rd party cookies into 1st party cookies. This whole problem isn't going way -- it is just going to shift.

Yup. Instead of adcookies.adco.com, it will become adcocookies..com. Also there are lots of other ways to fingerprint a person. I'm 99.95% sure google wouldn't commit to supporting the end of 3rd party targeting cookies if they didn't have a plan for sustaining their ad revenue.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#124

Post by GekkePrutser »

amluto wrote: post #62
xnx wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content providers want third party cookies. Users have no idea what third party cookies are. Any deprecation of third party cookies will have to come from the user-agent (Safari and Chrome being the only ones that matter).

Content providers don’t. Advertising networks do. If the whole industry moved to content-based advertising, the content providers would be just fine.

Yes even the advertisers don't care. It's the networks themselves that build value worth big data that keep the myth alive that tracking is necessary for advertising.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#125

Post by cratermoon »

manquer wrote: post #116
ljm wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Facebook ads and Google ads do not need third party cookies ? How are they serving contextual ads if they don't know what you are doing on different websites if the myriad of trackers they offer to content websites do not track you by third party cookies ?

there are several ways. ETags for one, another is to have all the various sites that use an ad network to send the relevant visitor fingerprint data to a central broker that correlates the information and attempts to determine that entity A and entity B are really the same person because a bunch of attributes match.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#126

Post by GekkePrutser »

salawat wrote: post #91
vbezhenar wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 us…

>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 so right. I miss the old internet.

And yeah hosting is so cheap the cost of it is pretty irrelevant per user. Definitely not necessary for tracked ads to pay operating expenses.

However content creation might take more money. And the whole marketing, admin etc circus at most sites.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#127

Post by _abox »

likpok wrote: post #71
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.

This means that the only way to make money is via subscriptions or cross promoting something that makes you the real money. The walled gardens, being able to both avoid Adblock and sell targeted ads, will do quite well. If your goal is the open web of yore, that doesn’t exactly sound like a win.

How do you get users into your walled garden though? I just walk away when I encounter a paywall and I'm sure most people do.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#128

Post by GekkePrutser »

2bitencryption wrote: post #7

Is it just me, or is FLoC simply an act? A way for Google to say, "See, regulators, we're trying! You don't have to regulate us, we're doing it on our own!" While they know full well the web will never get on board with this. Seems like just a way to buy time, to muddy the waters. Make the ecosystem more complicated. Pin the blame on others for not getting on board with your attempt to "fix" the situation. "We tried…

No it's much more than an act it's a way for Google to keep doing business as usual while skirting regulation, and at the same time establishing a monopoly on the advertising technology of the future. Because Google will be the gatekeeper of FLoC. Whereas with cookies they're just one of the players, albeit a huge one.

Your can bet they will throw every bit of lobbying power they have at this. No wonder some larger companies like Microsoft are not giving a hard NO.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#129

Post by GekkePrutser »

perryizgr8 wrote: post #121
chmod775 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Okay, it is true I can do nothing to force you to eat this pile of poo and I have nothing as means of payment, but let's make a compromise: How about you eat half?" How about no, Google? DRM made its way into browsers only barely, and in that case they at least had something people wanted.

> DRM made its way into browsers only barely, and in that case they at least had something people wanted. What did DRM have that people wanted?

Netflix.

People are giving out about browsers and devices not supporting widevine now :(

Post reply on HN