Ongoing related thread:
Privacy Analysis of FLoC - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27463794 - June 2021 (2 comments)
Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data
191–200 of 227 posts
Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
> FLoC is NOT proven to be incentive-compatible with consumers and how they value their privacy. The only guarantee is that users are (on average) harder to distinguish within a cohort. Google absolutely studied the possible economic consequences of FLoC prior to announcement and they are hiding that study. Either because the results are crappy, the Google Ads employees are less competent than they were a decade ago,…
Normally, incentive compatibility is a concept from game theory and, more significantly, mechanism design (most known for auction theory). In simple terms, it states that the mechanism that (say) Google offers to the consumer is such that the consumer finds it optimal to act according to their true preferences. In so called direct mechanisms, this means that the consumer would prefer to reveal their true type (inform…
Right! This is the notion of incentive compatibility I'm trying to draw upon. One problem here is that not all of the incentives and objective functions are visible. That said, Google I'm certain has approved FLoC for launch based upon a mechanism, and so far I really see no evidence that that mechanism can actually be favorable to the wider public (not just "privacy geeks"). Would love to see Google's actual research that was provided to the launch committee, but I might as well ask for access to Area 51.
For the majority of users, I do believe tracking has some upshot, at least for reducing ad spam and ad fraud. It's really hard to prove this without a counterfactual study, but if you compare Facebook ads with the crap on news sites today, I think that situation is illustrative of a place where Facebook's improved targeting saves the user from a lot of spam / fraud. And I'd argue that outcome is a result of Facebook having a monopoly over their own targeting and identifiers.
Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data
#193I didn't realize FLOC was already in use. Looks like to disbable it in Chrome... you have to find a deeply nested config and then tell chrome you want to "disable privacy-preserving features". !?!? I can do this. But of course nobody else is, it's telling you are disabling privacy-preserving features! Its' making me kind of livid.
I'd hate to be that guy. But Chrome is not your friend when it comes to privacy. Chrome is the adversary.
Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data
#194But 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…
> 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.
Despite Google's marketing, FLoC has nothing to do with the removal of cookies.
Cookies were going away regardless, every other browser is doing it, Chrome is not powerful enough to go against the grain on this issue.
Separately from removing cookies (which was always going to eventually happen), Google proposed FLoC because they claimed it would help advertisers accept the change without encouraging them to build another equivalent tracking method using fingerprinting. Unsurprisingly, advertisers immediately took FLoC and used it to build another equivalent tracking method using fingerprinting.
The mistake here is meeting the advertising industry halfway. Just remove cookies. You don't need to propose anything else beyond that.
Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data
#195We need to collectively switch to Firefox and Brave.
I finally made the total switch to FF last year and it's fine; the stuff got imported from Chrome correctly. Containers are a good bonus. I keep a copy of Chrome at hand but I used it maybe once a month or two to test some random website, that's all. There is no single reason to remain on Chrome for me, I just regret it took me so long. No crashes, no noticeable performance differences, no quirks. I'm very grateful F…
Edge is a good alternative when you _need_ a chrome browser.
Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data
#196We need to collectively switch to Firefox and Brave.
I've been on Firefox for a few years now and it irritates me how super slow it is. Version 89 seems to be a bit better though. I know it might be the extensions (I have 20+) but I seriously don't care. Chrome manages to be fast with the same set of extensions. I don't like Google but Firefox's slowness is a real strain on my productivity and brain well-being. Hope they improve even more soon. I am on an iMac Pro btw.…
Strange. I find Chrome to be annoying and slow.
Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Critical hit if the preferences page has toggles that actually don't toggle, and just remain "on". This tracking data sent to a third part is certainly crucial in development of a website.
The preferences page itself should have a modal popup requiring the user to accept the website's terms prior to using the preferences page.
And after going to the site, and being forced to toggle every opt-out option individually before saving... if you return to the site later none of your opt-outs are shown and you have to redo everything each time.
Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't matter, changes nothing. It is a waste of time and energy to advocate for a privacy standard that can only ever be opt-in. Doesn't matter what Microsoft's motivations are, doesn't matter what they're doing elsewhere. A privacy standard that gets abandoned if it's ever defaulted to "on" for new users is worthless. It's not Microsoft's fault that DNT went away, DNT was always going to go away the moment a sizab…
Changes a few things, you don't "know" the result of something that never happened, you suspect. Also changes the perception that Microsoft were doing it to attack Google. Once it's a standard you'd get it enacted in law that companies have to respect the setting.
> you don't "know" the result of something that never happened, you suspect.
I don't know that an asteroid isn't going to kill me in the next 3 minutes, but I can make some educated guesses about the world. My read of the situation is consistent with the way that the advertising industry has reacted in every single similar situation. It's consistent with the way that they're acting right now with tracking restrictions that require affirmative consent. There's a pattern here.
> Also changes the perception that Microsoft were doing it to attack Google.
Who cares?
> Once it's a standard you'd get it enacted in law that companies have to respect the setting.
If we're going to talk about suspicions, I have seen zero evidence that a DNT standard would have actually helped get legislation passed. Generally speaking, that theory does not line up with my experience of how lawmaking works.
Nor does getting it passed into law mean that advertisers wouldn't immediately lobby for it to be revoked as soon as any company turned it on by default. Heck, they'd try to force it to be opt-in instead of opt-out in the law itself if given half a chance. They would argue that Microsoft was being anti-competitive (exactly as you're arguing right now). Facebook is currently arguing that Apple's privacy controls are anti-competitive, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't make the same argument about Microsoft if DNT was turned on by default, regardless of what the law said.
A privacy standard that can not be turned on by default is not worth fighting for.
Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You're basically just describing a tax system that is paid in consumerism which sucks because it's inherently regressive. Why is it regressive? High earners pay more for ad-funded sites than low earners. That's not regressive. It's not progressive either, strictly speaking, but it's better than subscription fees which are regressive because everyone pays the same absolute price regardless of their disposable income.
> High earners pay more for ad-funded sites than low earners. I'm not certain this is true. And targeted advertising certainly makes it less true, not more. Advertisers are not excluding low-income users from advertising, instead they're targeting more products at them that those users are more likely to buy. Untargeted ads for higher-cost luxury products might make the Internet cheaper for low-income users, but that…
>I'm not certain this true
I'm pretty sure it is, because nothing changes the fact that you can ultimately only spend what you earn (even considering credit). A share of that spending goes to advertising.
If someone can spend 10 or 20 times as much as another person after basic food and shelter then that difference trumps all other factors by a very wide margin.
I don't think it matters much, but just for the record: I don't believe rich people comparison shop as much as lower income earners. They buy what they fancy and they throw away what they don't like. I also don't think rich people are much harder to manipulate (but I'm not sure about that). They think much less before tapping that buy button. I know that much.
Re: Ad tech firms test ways to connect Google’s FLoC to other data
#200Earlier 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.
Despite Google's marketing, FLoC has nothing to do with the removal of cookies. Cookies were going away regardless, every other browser is doing it, Chrome is not powerful enough to go against the grain on this issue. Separately from removing cookies (which was always going to eventually happen), Google proposed FLoC because they claimed it would help advertisers accept the change without encouraging them to build an…
It has everything to do with the removal of cookies: Google has very clearly been waiting to have a viable alternative before they start blocking them.
It’s been something like 4 years since Safari started blocking cookies. You say Google isn’t powerful enough to resist, but Chrome has >60% market share.