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

Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 352 posts

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#271

Post by iainmerrick »

kelnos wrote: post #198
derekdahmer wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea with this proposal is to avoid browser fingerprinting. Cross site cookies are going away and there are essentially two possible paths for ad networks to compensate: a common approach like FLoC is adopted, or ad networks will continue to do ever more advanced fingerprinting based on things that are identify you individually and hard to obfuscate like graphical rendering and audio quirks. The proposal is if Go…

There's a third option: we make it hard enough to fingerprint users that doing so is too costly when compared to what the ad networks gain from doing it.

Costly to whom?

Fingerprinting already slows down websites, and websites still use it extensively. The cost is paid by the users and nobody cares enough to fix it.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#272

Post by ekimekim »

dleslie wrote: post #160

Too many folks commenting here seem to think that FLoC doesn't compromise privacy, when it is yet another bit of differentiation that can be used to fingerprint a browser. It's a particularly granular one, as well, placing users into manageable cohorts of only a few dozen thousands in size, or so is claimed. Combine FLoC with a handful of other fingerprint bits and you can track an individual.

Browser fingerprinting is besides the point here. The whole reason they want to fingerprint you is to build up an advertising profile. FLoC cuts out the middleman by giving every single site you visit access to the proceeds of the cross-site tracking. It's like saying "There's too many cameras pointed at my house, so instead I'm going to start publically streaming my life 24/7".

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#273

Post by fauigerzigerk »

codezero wrote: post #190
yholio wrote: post #173

Instead of more palatable user tracking, how about we tell advertisers and internet companies: fuck off, we don't want any tracking? How about we hunt down and eliminate all features that allow cross-site information sharing? How about we treat attacks on user privacy as security problems of the web standards, à la Tor, and build technology that aggressively hides any user signature in any layer, from rotating IP and…

I wrote a long, but low effort comment where my thesis was that I think it’s ok for companies to pay for your attention, but the problem is that they are paying Google. I ended up reaching the conclusion that we should ban paying money for your attention, but I haven’t thought of better alternatives for businesses to grow or expand online yet. USPS becomes vehicle for junk mail Telco becomes vehicle for robocalls Tel…

>I ended up reaching the conclusion that we should ban paying money for your attention

I don't think that's either possible or desirable. Attention seeking would simply take on sneakier forms that are indistinguishable from legitimate distribution of information and protected free speech.

Instead of somewhat independent ad funded publications, you would get publications that are owned by product companies (or political parties) themselves. The content they publish would be far more biased. Subscription based publications wouldn't stand a chance against those free and well funded company owned publications.

Advertising is very annoying, but I think it can be more transparent than almost any other form of influencing people.

Tracking for personalised advertising is an entirely separate issue. That's where I think a blanket ban could work.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#274

Post by labawi »

TravisLS wrote: post #227
yholio wrote: post #173

Instead of more palatable user tracking, how about we tell advertisers and internet companies: fuck off, we don't want any tracking? How about we hunt down and eliminate all features that allow cross-site information sharing? How about we treat attacks on user privacy as security problems of the web standards, à la Tor, and build technology that aggressively hides any user signature in any layer, from rotating IP and…

One potentially negative unintended consequence: closed systems like Facebook become even more powerful than they already are. Their revenues will dwarf (even more than they do now) any other free digital platform that can't re-create a fully targeted ad product entirely in-house. Without Google AdX and the mess of disturbing cross-site tracking, I can't see why advertisers wouldn't just spend 100% of their digital b…

Maybe laws could forbid profiling?

So you couldn't select 18-25 recently-single white female within 50km as a target category (or whatever else you come up with).

I think GDPR may already forbid such use (without consent), though the implementation is tricky.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#276

Post by number6 »

labawi wrote: post #274
TravisLS wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One potentially negative unintended consequence: closed systems like Facebook become even more powerful than they already are. Their revenues will dwarf (even more than they do now) any other free digital platform that can't re-create a fully targeted ad product entirely in-house. Without Google AdX and the mess of disturbing cross-site tracking, I can't see why advertisers wouldn't just spend 100% of their digital b…

Maybe laws could forbid profiling? So you couldn't select 18-25 recently-single white female within 50km as a target category (or whatever else you come up with). I think GDPR may already forbid such use (without consent), though the implementation is tricky.

Profiling has to be done with acording to a privacy assesment analysis and can only be done if the assesment shows no elevated risks and / or the risks that exists are taken into account and contingencys are planed for.

Yes it is quite some work and overhead, but you are extracting information and use it in a way the person could not foresee or conceptualize even exists within the data.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#277

Post by charcircuit »

roody15 wrote: post #225
mcint wrote: post #7

FLoC stands for Federated Learning of Cohorts which aims to target advertising better without it directly relying on singularly personal information. https://web.dev/floc/ FLoC enables ad selection without sharing the browsing behaviour of individual users. FLoC provides a privacy-preserving mechanism for interest-based ad selection. As a user moves around the web, their browser uses the FLoC algorithm to work out it…

The issue with FLoC is it based on a false premise. Advertising can be successful without needing to build a tracking profile on a person as they traverse multiple websites. For example if I visit a website that follows trends in computer hardware... advertisers may pay to put ads in this site to PC parts, etc. If I visit a site about popular camping locations.. advertisers can purchase ads that are relevant to campi…

If you were right Google would not have personalized ads enabled by default.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#278

Post by charcircuit »

yholio wrote: post #173

Instead of more palatable user tracking, how about we tell advertisers and internet companies: fuck off, we don't want any tracking? How about we hunt down and eliminate all features that allow cross-site information sharing? How about we treat attacks on user privacy as security problems of the web standards, à la Tor, and build technology that aggressively hides any user signature in any layer, from rotating IP and…

You are just opening up yourself to abuse. Sybil attacks are one of the biggest problems in computing and tracking helps us mitigate it. A truly private internet can't handle bad actors and such will be unable to scale.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#279

Post by morelisp »

mikl wrote: post #88
morelisp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Big Ad (aka. Google and its ilk) So to be clear, "Big Ad" is like, dentsu, Publicis, Omnicom, etc. Companies that don't show up on HN much (but do ultimately buy the services which pay a ton of HNer's salaries). They don't like Google very much, but Google owns a ton of space to put ads on, lots of first-party traffic with interesting properties, and more accurate targeting models than most other companies combined…

Google is an integrated part of “Big Ad”, they’re the largest advertising company in the world. And now they’re using their ownership of the most popular browser to sneakily install FLoC on their unwitting user’s machines.

> Google is an integrated part of “Big Ad”

If you view the market through only this lens it becomes very easy for partisan interests (e.g. Brave, just as much an advertising company as Google) to trick you. Google is notable for how disintegrated it is from the rest of the ad business, between its technology monopolies and vertical integrations.

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#280

Post by Guthur »

danielheath wrote: post #234
TravisLS wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One potentially negative unintended consequence: closed systems like Facebook become even more powerful than they already are. Their revenues will dwarf (even more than they do now) any other free digital platform that can't re-create a fully targeted ad product entirely in-house. Without Google AdX and the mess of disturbing cross-site tracking, I can't see why advertisers wouldn't just spend 100% of their digital b…

Assuming tracking works (I have my doubts it boosts conversion), there has to be an equilibrium price, right? That is, advertising camping gear on a camping review site (without tracking) still has some nonzero commercial value even if facebook tracking exists and works.

Tracking is not necessarily about boosting conversion, though definitely an aspect of it, but it's also about trying to prove the value of the advertising spend to begin with.

If I wanted to be generous I could point to the fact that advertiser revenue allows companies to realise a revenue stream other than having to directly charge a customer, be that subscription or increased prices. And so it could be argued that as a consumer you get an indirect benefit from advertising dollars, it's not clear that it's actually exploitive in that sense.

Full disclosure, I run adblockers and used to work for an adtech company.

Post reply on HN