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

131–140 of 167 posts

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#131

Post by p49k »

IX-103 wrote: post #105
p49k wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And if they could do it workout gathering that much personal data? Isn't that what FLOC is trying to do?

That's what FLoC is trying and failing to do according to basically every analysis, including this one. Ads can exist without having to be based on users' personal data, as they were for 100+ years before (even on the internet itself, they used to be based on the content of the site rather than users' personal data)

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#132

Post by gerash »

imiric wrote: post #117
google234123 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a false dichotomy. Paywalls aren't the only alternative to ads. If companies can come up with user-respecting business models, I'd be happy to support them. If their business is worth supporting.

What is this alternative?

Something that a publisher can use to fund itself that's neither paywall nor advertisement. I'm genuinely curious.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#133

Post by hyperhopper »

yarcob wrote: post #129

If you peel away the buzzwords, FLOC is basically just your browser tracking you, and telling advertisers which ads you are most likely to click on. Google claims to do this in a way that preserves your privacy, but ultimately these are empty promises. There is no way to spy on people without being creepy. Many (most?) people don't want to be tracked at all, "privately" or not. It's such a pity that online advertisin…

> There is no way to spy on people without being creepy.

What "creepy" is, is an entirely subjective opinion that changes from person to person. I'd say there are totally ways.

When I go to a grocery store and swipe that card for a discount, I know it's just being used to correlate purchases and track me, but I don't view it as creepy at all. All they got from me was my payment information, but they literally already have that, they get that every time I swipe my credit card anyway. So what is creepy about me explicitly awknowleding I'm being tracked in a reasonable way when I'm in their store?

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#134

Post by _ZeD_ »

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…

>>> I like personalized ads.

why?

no, seriously, why?

"personalized" ad creeps me out, and I really don't understand how people can tolerate a banner like "We know you buyed Some Thing from amazon so we think you would like to purchase Related Thing from us" and not freak out

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#135

Post by thiht »

leipert wrote: post #32
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…

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…

> So far nothing we have bought based on Instagram or Facebook ads has been useful in the long run.

Why do you buy things you don't need just because you see an ad?

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#136

Post by yarcob »

hyperhopper wrote: post #133
yarcob wrote: post #129

If you peel away the buzzwords, FLOC is basically just your browser tracking you, and telling advertisers which ads you are most likely to click on. Google claims to do this in a way that preserves your privacy, but ultimately these are empty promises. There is no way to spy on people without being creepy. Many (most?) people don't want to be tracked at all, "privately" or not. It's such a pity that online advertisin…

> There is no way to spy on people without being creepy. What "creepy" is, is an entirely subjective opinion that changes from person to person. I'd say there are totally ways. When I go to a grocery store and swipe that card for a discount, I know it's just being used to correlate purchases and track me, but I don't view it as creepy at all. All they got from me was my payment information, but they literally already…

> I know it's just being used to correlate purchases and track me, but I don't view it as creepy at all.

The creepy part is when people do things without telling you. That stores keep a record of your purchases when you swipe the card is probably not creepy. I'd assume most people assume that's what happens.

But if they then share the information they collected on you with others, without asking for your explicit permission, that's where it's starting to get creepy.

I'm not sure Chrome users are aware that their browser tracks every website they visit, create a profile on you, and then share that profile (in a supposedly privacy preserving way) with others.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#137

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

google234123 wrote: post #72
p49k wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most content is being produced by end users that are paid nothing. In the early says of the internet, when there was no advertising, there was plenty of content. But what made the internet truly exciting was not the "content" but the potential ability to communicate and share with people anywhere in the world without expensive telephone calls or slow postal service. Think of the internet not as a "destination" but as a medium. It is a way to reach someone, like a telephone line, but with much greater capabilities. (Originally, that is how we accessed it, over telephone lines.) The internet is not a collection of popular websites run by companies that spy on you for the purposes of online advertising. They are just middlemen exploiting that desire of users to connect with each other. They sit in the middle and spy on everything. The internet is a medium, not a collection of middlemen. When you remove the ads, the "business model" of the middlmen disappears, and the incentive for spying is reduced.

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#138

Post by no_time »

md_ wrote: post #22
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…

Isn’t the DRM comparison exactly right, though? Improving ad targeting enables an ad-supported online ecosystem. Admittedly, there’s a tragedy of the commons issue: I have no individual incentive to enable FLOC. But, similarly to your DRM example, at some point publishers could require it, no?

> at some point publishers could require it, no?

They could. However they wouldn't have a way of enforcing you play along and don't have a separate floc ID for every site you visit

Re: Privacy Analysis of FLoC

#139

Post by imiric »

gerash wrote: post #132
imiric wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a false dichotomy. Paywalls aren't the only alternative to ads. If companies can come up with user-respecting business models, I'd be happy to support them. If their business is worth supporting.

What is this alternative? Something that a publisher can use to fund itself that's neither paywall nor advertisement. I'm genuinely curious.

The fact it doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't exist. The only reason ads are so prevalent is because they're the easiest and most lucrative way to monetize, at the expense of the user.

FWIW I think the Brave Browser model is a step in the right direction, even though Brave Inc. has made some missteps along the way. Give the user the choice of which services they want to support, and make that process as frictionless as possible.

If the tech giants had incentives to come up with a user-friendly business model, I'm sure those genius minds would think of something. Alas, the status quo benefits their shareholders and they have no reason to change.

FLoC is just marketing fluff to paint their predatory practices in a better light, not an indication that they actually care about their users. Their #1 priority is still profit from advertisers.

Post reply on HN