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

161–170 of 186 posts

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#161

Post by [deleted] »

busymom0 wrote: post #151
arjunkava wrote: post #148

This is actual blog by google https://blog.google/products/ads-commerce/2021-01-privacy-sa... and it says "eliminate third-party cookies by replacing them with viable privacy-first alternatives, developed alongside ecosystem partners, that will help publishers and advertisers succeed while also protecting people’s privacy as they move across the web." Am I the only guy who is distracted by the blog which uses 13 thir…

Is it just me or does that statement read like a PR virtue signalling? They are almost trying to change the meaning of privacy with that statement. If they want to eliminate third-party cookies but replacing them to achieve the same goal as the third-party cookies (help advertisers), then nothing is actually changing.

[deleted]

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#162

Post by bopbeepboop »

hakfoo wrote: post #160
roody15 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anonymous web makes sense. The very idea that we need an ad profile that follows us as we traverse the web is ridiculous. Contextual advertising works. Visit a popular website covering PC hardware .. and advertisers can pay to put ads to parts, chips, cases, etc. Visit a website that covers hiking trails and companies can purchase ads for camping gear, travel lodging, etc. The very notion that it should be normal for…

At this point, I think it's become a "too big to fail" argument for the industry. We have several near-trillion-dollar companies that basically have no viable business model other than doubling down on targeted advertising. If third-party cookies get demonized or GDPR'd to death, they need to pivot to SOMETHING else that still fits into the same profiling paradigm. I suspect it's not about results or innovation anymo…

I believe ads work — but I’ve seen little evidence anything beyond contextual ads work.

But yeah, show someone on a blog about new GPUs an ad to buy a GPU and there’s an uptick. Turns out some of those people do want to buy GPUs.

Showing me an ad for GPUs on the YouTube page for cat videos because I visited that blog previously is weird.

Like a friend going, “so looking at these cats reminds me — do you want my friend Dave’s GPU?”

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#163

Post by freebuju »

Thorrez wrote: post #132
GeekyBear wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sounds like FloC is definitely more anonymous than third party cookies that are already in use today. Not at all. My browser deletes cookies from any website (by default) as soon as I close the last tab for a given open site. If the browser itself starts tracking me, my privacy is reduced, not enhanced.

I would think that whenever the "clear cookies" command is given to a browser, it also clears the FloC ids. Is that not the case?

You just might be right. If you clear the history, the FLoC machine will have to calculate the cohort ID afresh. There are other use cases for this as this form of identification can be manipulated. Don't want to see cat ads anymore, google more dog memes next week.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#164

Post by TeeMassive »

> It uses an algorithm to look at your browser history and place you in a group of people with similar browsing histories so that advertisers can target you.

No, just no. Just because cookies are a necessary evil that is being abused doesn't mean normalizing the abuse makes it not abuse. Also the normalization of unacceptable behavior only makes things worse since it implies permission.

I just want stuff that remember my settings and logins as for the rest just leave me alone.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#166

Post by TeeMassive »

shp0ngle wrote: post #139

People say how they hate surveillance tech, but at the end of the day, it pays half of the bills on this website. Most probably, there is Google Analytics and Facebook pixel on the very site you are building right now. So all these horribly, horribly outraged comments ring kind of hollow to me. I mean look at how many trackers are on The Verge site itself. Yeah FLoC is horrible. I hope it dies in a fire. It's just, p…

> People say how they hate surveillance tech, but at the end of the day, it pays half of the bills on this website.

It seems to me that HN is a gateway to advertise a bigger platform. It's more of a win-win situation than a "you're the product" kind of thing. Also right now µBlock Origin and Privacy Badger are blocking nothing.

And with more and more content producers soured by Big Tech creating their own private subscription based websites or opening semi-private platforms I wouldn't be surprised if we will see a decline ads revenue in the coming years.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#167

Post by zeusk »

busymom0 wrote: post #154
naikrovek wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people that build websites want tracking. And it works. Retargeting works, banners work. do they? I've never once bought anything because and ad made me aware of it, or because an ad convinced me I needed it. not once. has anyone? I'm sure someone has, but how many? I would not be surprised if studies were done that computed a purchase rate overall for all the ads people see or hear in their lives, that the number…

One thing to note is that the purpose of ads might not just be to get you to directly click on it and buy something. It might also be to make you remember the brand name so the next time you think of lets say baby diapers, you remember "Huggies" because they are the most advertised ones even though there are better and cheaper alternatives. As for how impactful the ads are - you don't need a study. Simply run an ad a…

There’s a saying in finance, the more complex a financial product is, the more money banks make on it.

I feel it quite aptly applies to advertisement industry as well. Massive amounts of complexity and red tape over getting people to buy things

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#168

Post by MzHN »

busymom0 wrote: post #154
naikrovek wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people that build websites want tracking. And it works. Retargeting works, banners work. do they? I've never once bought anything because and ad made me aware of it, or because an ad convinced me I needed it. not once. has anyone? I'm sure someone has, but how many? I would not be surprised if studies were done that computed a purchase rate overall for all the ads people see or hear in their lives, that the number…

One thing to note is that the purpose of ads might not just be to get you to directly click on it and buy something. It might also be to make you remember the brand name so the next time you think of lets say baby diapers, you remember "Huggies" because they are the most advertised ones even though there are better and cheaper alternatives. As for how impactful the ads are - you don't need a study. Simply run an ad a…

Honestly wondering why this is getting downvoted, if it's not against the rules to wonder.

I hate targeted ads as much as anyone, and I don't buy the ad tech bs that they are vital to human survival, but I think the GP is a bit naive to think that ads have no effect on them.

There's long-standing research that people unconsciously prefer familiar things, so exposure to ads is enough even if you don't remember it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect

Of course if you would have never ever bought something, an ad is unlikely to make you change your mind. Same if you do thorough research on what to buy, you're probably not swayed by familiarity. But claiming that they have no effect is a bit naive.

EDIT: I guess GP never claimed that they have no effect, but what I'm trying to say is that ads probably have a bigger effect in people in general, and even to you personally whoever is reading this, than you'd think. Targeted ads though? I hope we can live without them.

Re: Nobody is joining Google's FLoC

#170

Post by Ekaros »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #3

Just have it default-off, allow the user to turn it on if they want to be "ad targeted". I mean I keep hearing how, as a consumer, I want this.

I don't understand why isn't this default already. Why do I need to install add-on for google not to track me? Shouldn't it be exactly opposite, install one to allow them to track me?
Post reply on HN