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

Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data

digiday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 227 posts

Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data

#141

Post by twobitshifter »

3np wrote: post #47
EMM_386 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further down it quotes ... > “If your behavior doesn’t change, the algorithm will keep assigning you in that same cohort, so some users will have a persistent FLoC ID associated with them — or could." When combined with other information that is already being used (such as canvas fingerprinting and other techniques), this looks like it can help narrow it down even further. > “We can use that as another signal to crea…

Arguably for advertisers it’s a benefit - if your behavior changes to that extent, likely you’d be better targeted by different ads.

Right and floc was made for advertisers. They’re the customers here.

Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data

#142

Post by hkai »

danShumway wrote: post #97

But this can't be, people assured me that FLoC was an improvement to privacy, and that it would provide an alternative to persistent identifiers and profiles, and that it would help end the arms race on fingerprinting. You mean to tell me that FLoC will be used for fingerprinting anyway, and it changes nothing about advertiser's strategies and tracking techniques, and they won't self-regulate, and that it doesn't wor…

As a solution, I propose a popup on each website that forces the user to accept FLoCs.

Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data

#143

Post by unknown_error »

pjerem wrote: post #134
unknown_error wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably the engine SHOULD be the standard. The W3C and WHATWG have never been able to reliably document, much less enforce, standards. Add in ECMAScript variances and all the other newfangled web APIs and it's a losing proposition. The standards bodies never could keep up with the pace of innovation. Might as well let the code BE the standard. That's already the way it works in the real world... the standards are ir…

Yes but its giving too much power to one actor only. What if Google decides to stop supporting an architecture, or decides that it's ok to have 8GB ram as a requirement ? What if they choose to implement a hardware accelerated feature that works only with NVIDIA LATEST-WHATEVER-AI-VR-HYPE ? What if they want to implement "crypto payment" as a standard and, oh, that's GDollars ? Of course those are just random made up…

Yeah, that's why ideally the engine itself would be open-source (which it is, though largely controlled by Google). I wish it were further controlled by a third party, kinda like ICANN or Mozilla, but that also subjects it to political capture.

The thing is, the existence of Gecko never actually meaningfully challenged corporate oligarchies. Mozilla's mission was noble but they were never particularly effective at it... web standards went from IE6 being the defacto standard to the Wild West for a while to Webkit dominance to a Blink/Webkit duopoly. There was never a period where we actually saw a standards-based web ecosystem. It was always renderer-based. In that sense, I'd argue the Gecko contributors (and Mozilla as a whole) would have more influence over the web ecosystem if they abandoned Gecko and focused on the Chromium/Blink project instead, especially if they had override/veto power over questionable commits from any one corporation. As it is, Gecko/Firefox is less than 5% of the web. You can't influence, much less set, any real standards when you're just a rounding error.

Like it or not, Chromium IS the standard. Only when Mozilla realizes that will they actually have a chance to succeed at their mission, instead of being the beloved but always-losing underdog...

Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data

#144

Post by Nextgrid »

lima wrote: post #116
______- wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> End the arms race on fingerprinting Google is known to fingerprint you on their sites[0] and this practice will continue unless some sort of political action is taken to make fingerprinting illegal. WebGL is not the only heuristic used to reliably determine it's a specific device accessing a site, but a whole slew of techniques can be used to reliably determine it is 'you' who is on a site (you can even detect if a…

> Google is known to fingerprint you on their sites[0] To my understanding, Google (and many other sites) use WebGL and other fingerprinting techniques to distinguish real users from bots. This does not mean they use it to track individual users (if that were even legal in Europe under GDPR).

Google's tracking consent flow is already in breach of the GDPR, so it's not a problem for them.

Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data

#145

Post by hkai »

______- wrote: post #101
danShumway wrote: post #97

But this can't be, people assured me that FLoC was an improvement to privacy, and that it would provide an alternative to persistent identifiers and profiles, and that it would help end the arms race on fingerprinting. You mean to tell me that FLoC will be used for fingerprinting anyway, and it changes nothing about advertiser's strategies and tracking techniques, and they won't self-regulate, and that it doesn't wor…

> End the arms race on fingerprinting Google is known to fingerprint you on their sites[0] and this practice will continue unless some sort of political action is taken to make fingerprinting illegal. WebGL is not the only heuristic used to reliably determine it's a specific device accessing a site, but a whole slew of techniques can be used to reliably determine it is 'you' who is on a site (you can even detect if a…

Why do you want to disable it? Isn't it nice to see ads that are interesting and useful to you rather than looking at some useless ads you're not interested in?

Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data

#146

Post by morelisp »

CivBase wrote: post #126
granzymes wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people assured me that FLoC was an improvement to privacy It is an improvement to privacy. Cookies uniquely identify me with no other information required. FLoC does not uniquely identify me with no other information required. The opt-out is similar too: block cookies in the browser or block FLoC in the browser.

You're talking about FLoC as an alternative to third party cookies, but major browsers had already done away with those before the rollout of FLoC. If getting rid of third party cookies was two steps forward, FLoC is one step back. We're technically further ahead than where we started, but that certainly wasn't thanks to FLoC. Without it we'd be even further ahead, so that's what we should be advocating for.

> major browsers had already done away with those before the rollout of FLoC

No, not really - ETP only blocks the most technically literal meaning of "third-party cookie" while still allowing plenty of tracking scripts to work with shared first-party data.

Chrome has well over 50% of the desktop browser market share, which by some measurements makes it the only major browser, and FLoC is definitely a prerequisite to Chrome disabling third-party cookie support.

Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data

#147

Post by dylan604 »

pluc wrote: post #118
esnard wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure if this is something I would prefer to current ads, or something I would want to avoid.

Once you block out the "big advertisers", you get advertisements from smaller companies or even individuals.

That actually sounds like something is working within AdTech! How can that possibly be?

Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data

#148

Post by chaosite »

hkai wrote: post #145
______- wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> End the arms race on fingerprinting Google is known to fingerprint you on their sites[0] and this practice will continue unless some sort of political action is taken to make fingerprinting illegal. WebGL is not the only heuristic used to reliably determine it's a specific device accessing a site, but a whole slew of techniques can be used to reliably determine it is 'you' who is on a site (you can even detect if a…

Why do you want to disable it? Isn't it nice to see ads that are interesting and useful to you rather than looking at some useless ads you're not interested in?

Seeing ads isn't nice.

Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data

#149

Post by alias_neo »

pluc wrote: post #119
alias_neo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say "block", do you mean Twitter block the account which is the Advertiser?

Yes, so that Twitter in their algorithm figures out that you can't consume this particular ad, it finds others. The more you block, the smaller the pool of advertisers is.

Nice, I have a new Twitter game to play, thanks.

Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data

#150

Post by function_seven »

hkai wrote: post #142
danShumway wrote: post #97

But this can't be, people assured me that FLoC was an improvement to privacy, and that it would provide an alternative to persistent identifiers and profiles, and that it would help end the arms race on fingerprinting. You mean to tell me that FLoC will be used for fingerprinting anyway, and it changes nothing about advertiser's strategies and tracking techniques, and they won't self-regulate, and that it doesn't wor…

As a solution, I propose a popup on each website that forces the user to accept FLoCs.

I have a suggestion to improve your idea: Allow the user to deny the FLoC if they wish, by redirecting them to a byzantine "Preferences" page with 2 dozen options to opt in or out of. Promise to apply the user's choices within 7 business days.
Post reply on HN