Live data from Hacker News

Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

github.com

351–352 of 352 posts

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#351
post #56

That's a very interesting move. The patch seems fairly small, but now it's a patch that Brave needs to maintain and update every time they merge a new upstream version. That's what makes me wary of the whole Chromium fork concept. Every time Brave/Vivaldi/Edge/etc decide to take a different path from Google's they effectively add to their maintenance burden forever, even if like in this case they actually disable an…

(Brave employee here) We actually have a fair chunk of deviations that we maintain (link already shared by Brendan, but here it is again) https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-...

We have a pretty comprehensive patching system which you can read more about here: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Patching-Chromiu...

There is a small team of folks here constantly working on rebasing the next Chromium version on Brave. They fight these deviations and try to minimize the patching as much as possible- so future versions are easier and easier. We even have some clever UI patching for the Polymer pages

There definitely have been challenges - for example, with Chromium 69, the network delegates were moved over to NetworkService which broke our shields code. But I'm really proud of the work done to minimize things. For a long time, the team rebasing Chromium was just one person... and we've always delivered Chromium upgrades and updates to Brave users within 24-48 hours of Google's stable channel

Re: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features

#352
post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing stopping Google or Facebook from offering content-based advertising to advertisers, publishers and users--sidestepping any issues with multiple small ad deals. A regulator could demand it if they wanted, and together publishers and advertisers could too. Individual users just don't have the same power, and resort to adblockers--which is pretty much their only option if they don't want to be tracked w…

Fair point. If you prohibit everyone, including walled gardens, from targeting based on user behavior or user data, that seems like a plausible solution. It's a purely regulatory solution, though, not technical as the top level comment suggested :)

Opt-in user targeting could still be fine (like offline loyalty programs), and it would be healthier than the current norm of opt-out through ad-blockers.
Post reply on HN