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

211–220 of 227 posts

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

#211

Post by Seirdy »

whoopdedo wrote: post #128
tyingq wrote: post #117

I'm hoping for a sort of community revolt where most popular pieces of software that serve http, and most popular websites send back the "Permissions-Policy: interest-cohort=()" header as a default setting. I know Github did this, hoping others will follow.

Does that really do anything? The entire Permissions-Policy header confuses me. Isn't that telling the browser to lock the FLoC API for that domain. So no resources loaded from github.com won't be able to call the interest_cohort() function. But GitHub doesn't serve ads, so why would their scripts be using the function? And what's the point of declaring that scripts from your domain are not allowed to use the FLoC AP…

> Does that really do anything?

It does very little; effort is better spent getting people off FLoCed browsers like Chrome.

More info: https://seirdy.one/2021/04/16/permissions-policy-floc-misinf...

This is what's really bad about FLoC; it's so hard to fight back on behalf of oblivious Chrome users who didn't opt out. For the uninformed, there's no winning move.

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

#212

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

Spivak wrote: post #166
hkai wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The issue is buried in the premise of the question. “ If you’re going to see an ad regardless , would you rather it be relevant to you or not?” The answer is and always has been “I don’t want to see an ad in the first place, I don’t want you collecting any information about me under any circumstances, and anything that makes ads spots worth less is a positive.” You know the cheeky “you won’t see fewer ads, they’ll ju…

Well said.

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

#213

Post by function_seven »

zentiggr wrote: post #197
zeptonix wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well that was your fault. The seventh toggle on the list was clearly labeled, "Use cookies to track my choices for the preceding six preferences and the following eight preferences"

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

#214

Post by jrochkind1 »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #162
jrochkind1 wrote: post #160

I 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.

by disabling it you're giving more uniquely identifying info to the fingerprinting backend apps lol

what uniquely identifying info does the feature disable, in exchange for FLoC?

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

#215

Post by r00fus »

Farow wrote: post #203
jrochkind1 wrote: post #160

I 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.

If you're using uBO, it's defused by default: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.35.0

I thought that µBlock Origin didn't work on Chrome?

If you want privacy, stay on Firefox.

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

#216

Post by tyingq »

Seirdy wrote: post #211
whoopdedo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that really do anything? The entire Permissions-Policy header confuses me. Isn't that telling the browser to lock the FLoC API for that domain. So no resources loaded from github.com won't be able to call the interest_cohort() function. But GitHub doesn't serve ads, so why would their scripts be using the function? And what's the point of declaring that scripts from your domain are not allowed to use the FLoC AP…

> Does that really do anything? It does very little; effort is better spent getting people off FLoCed browsers like Chrome. More info: https://seirdy.one/2021/04/16/permissions-policy-floc-misinf... This is what's really bad about FLoC; it's so hard to fight back on behalf of oblivious Chrome users who didn't opt out. For the uninformed, there's no winning move.

That post is helpful, but adding a global header across a site is typically very little effort. And there's nothing in there that says it's harmful.

And I'm unconvinced on this part:

"If your website does not include JS that calls document.interestCohort(), it will not leverage Google’s FLoC. Explicitly opting out will not change this."

I try to know everything running on my site. But especially with things like a deep npm dependency chain, I know not everyone knows everything that's running on their site. Or maybe chrome will interpret an image that happens to be an IAB size as an ad. I recall a certain storage related company recently running Google Analytics on an admin page, something the tech team didn't intend to happen. But shit happens.

I think it's worth putting up, both for whatever limited help it provides, as well as a visible vote against FloC.

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

#217

Post by hda2 »

r00fus wrote: post #215
Farow wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're using uBO, it's defused by default: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.35.0

I thought that µBlock Origin didn't work on Chrome? If you want privacy, stay on Firefox.

My understanding is that it's gimped on Chrome. It's still better than nothing.

Firefox unfortunately is becoming harder to use with every release.

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

#218

Post by moneywoes »

extr wrote: post #131
pluc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to have fun with Twitter ads, block the advertiser whenever you see them. After two weeks or so you start to get really.. different stuff.

I've been using twitter since 2009 and do this religiously, I have literally thousands of corporate accounts blocked. My ads at this point are incredibly niche, bordering on surreal. Sometimes I will retweet them just because they're so absurd.

Any highlights?

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

#219

Post by moneywoes »

eingaeKaiy8ujie wrote: post #48
alias_neo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched to FF years ago. I used to root my Android phones but I'm getting too old (read; jaded) to care now, Firefox means that with uBlock I _still_ never see ads on my phone. I pay for apps I want to use, and I don't use apps which don't have an alternative to ad-supported, with one exception being Twitter and "Promoted" tweets, which I can spot and skip in a blink.

For Android I can also recommend Bromite. It's Chromium-based with a built-in ad blocker and focus on anti-fingerprinting. https://www.bromite.org/

Anyhing like this for ios that is chromium based

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

#220

Post by Seirdy »

tyingq wrote: post #216
Seirdy wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does that really do anything? It does very little; effort is better spent getting people off FLoCed browsers like Chrome. More info: https://seirdy.one/2021/04/16/permissions-policy-floc-misinf... This is what's really bad about FLoC; it's so hard to fight back on behalf of oblivious Chrome users who didn't opt out. For the uninformed, there's no winning move.

That post is helpful, but adding a global header across a site is typically very little effort. And there's nothing in there that says it's harmful. And I'm unconvinced on this part: "If your website does not include JS that calls document.interestCohort(), it will not leverage Google’s FLoC. Explicitly opting out will not change this." I try to know everything running on my site. But especially with things like a de…

If your stack is so deep that you're worried about serving malware to users for them to execute, you might want to put a warning on your site so users understand the risk before executing scripts.

The fact that the above sentence sounds unrealistic nowadays is extremely depressing. If malware distribution through web browsers wasn't already the norm, it'd look like common sense.

Post reply on HN