191–200 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome was already tracking your users anyway...
why is this comment gray? it's true https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf
Let me get this straight: even if my site has no ads or trackers, Chrome will now use my visitors data for advertising and surveillance??? Does anyone else see FLoC as worse than the current state we're in?
> "[..] use my visitors data for advertising and surveillance [..]" ..and to improve a search engine empire that is arguably the basis for the majority of their ad business and which is already a factual monopoly. If you successfully avoided giving Google your visitor traffic data so far (by passively avoiding Google analytics, fonts, maps, etc.) then from now on you will have to take active steps to keep their finge…
How is "not using Chrome" not passive?
I run a website with no trackers, no ads, nothing at all to do with Google or any other company in any way. You come along, with Google Chrome, and visit my site. Google adds the fact that you visited my site to their massive dataset (as well as who-knows-what-else) And to opt out of something I have never been asked to be involved with in any way, I need to contact Google and ask them to please leave my site alone?
Am I understanding this shit correctly?
Whether I like it or not, my site, by proxy, is participating in Google's data mining?
If my guess is correct, how the actual fuck is this not illegal?
Edit: Ok, I guess I'm off the mark here with my assumptions so I'll put my pitchfork down.
Google are just using your Chrome browsing data, matching it with site id's (or hashes?) and then analysing the shit out of it for their gain.
As a website owner, nothing has changed other than I can tell them not to use my site as part of their analysis... that sound about right?
Has nobody bothered to read anything about FLoC? The purpose of this permission is to prevent embedded third-party content from using FLoC. Besides that it’s a no-op. FLoC does not track arbitrary websites, it tracks sites which retrieve the FLoC cohort via JS. So instead of dropping a unique third party cookie, and associating it with the data on the page, sites can now retrieve a k-anonymous cohort id and associate…
Ok, so let me see if I understand this correctly: I run a website with no trackers, no ads, nothing at all to do with Google or any other company in any way. You come along, with Google Chrome, and visit my site. Google adds the fact that you visited my site to their massive dataset (as well as who-knows-what-else) And to opt out of something I have never been asked to be involved with in any way, I need to contact G…
Seems similar to the Google Street View issue. They took pictures of public places, and you had to manually request to have your face or identifying info removed, if they were revealed.
The website is public in the same way as it can be accessed by any browser and isn't blocking search robots.
Ok, so let me see if I understand this correctly: I run a website with no trackers, no ads, nothing at all to do with Google or any other company in any way. You come along, with Google Chrome, and visit my site. Google adds the fact that you visited my site to their massive dataset (as well as who-knows-what-else) And to opt out of something I have never been asked to be involved with in any way, I need to contact G…
It seems that the content of your website may be used to identify the users interest.
It isn't illegal because the browser is allowed to do whatever you want with your website. This is really no different than an extension that can access your website content to recommend other pages you may be interested in.
In the same way it isn't clear to me why I would want to opt-out. I guess it is 1. Sending Google a signal and 2. Protecting users from themselves?
But if I want to protect users from themselves I'm probably better off showing a banner recommending Firefox. (And this also helps the open web at the same time)
Ok, so let me see if I understand this correctly: I run a website with no trackers, no ads, nothing at all to do with Google or any other company in any way. You come along, with Google Chrome, and visit my site. Google adds the fact that you visited my site to their massive dataset (as well as who-knows-what-else) And to opt out of something I have never been asked to be involved with in any way, I need to contact G…
Ok, so let me see if I understand this correctly: I run a website with no trackers, no ads, nothing at all to do with Google or any other company in any way. You come along, with Google Chrome, and visit my site. Google adds the fact that you visited my site to their massive dataset (as well as who-knows-what-else) And to opt out of something I have never been asked to be involved with in any way, I need to contact G…
I'm 100% against this whole FLoC thing but I really cannot understand this conclusion.
If I drive through a McDonald's drivethrough, and Android/iOS/Fitbit/Tesla/whomever records my journey via GPS, they know I ate a McDonald's but McDonald's the company has not directly "participated" in any tracking of any kind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's tech that only benefits Google.
Doesn't it also benefit anyone who buys ads or anyone who displays ads?
This FLoC network should be opt in and it should be revenue sharing for all partners that participate.
We need to stop giving google all our work for free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Web server software maintainers should enable the header by default. Bugs should be filed against those with the wrong default.
Web server software should absolutely not add a bunch of garbage to work around some ad company's shenanigans.
Anyone who runs a site and wants to opt in against a default block should have to take extra action to reduce their visitors privacy, and should be called out for their behavior. As others have noted, there are already plenty of workarounds in use for many reasons... this is a BETTER reason than most.