71–80 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blocking FLoC is as easy as adding this header to the HTTP response: Permissions-Policy: interest-cohort=() Source: https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/issues/3209628
So, wait. We add this into the headers, and just expect Chrome to respect it?
What I don't get about the reporting on this topic: Isn't all this opt-out stuff just necessary while Google is testing FLoC and it'll be opt-in(!) after it leaves Origin Trial phase? Or is this Google employee straight up lying* here? https://twitter.com/Log3overLog2/status/1384337637763387394?... * I don't suspect he his.
(And while the author does say "Best guess", this isn't just an empty Google promise—if this changes, it would change the entire tenor of consensus-based standardization discussions that are happening here, and significantly lower Google's standing in the web standards community, which they care a lot about)
> There is a caveat regarding FLoC blocking on Whole Foods pages, however. While other Amazon-owned domains mentioned here that block FLoC do so using Google’s recommended approach involving sending a response header from HTML pages, Whole Foods blocking employs a tactic that sends an opt-out header from Amazon analytics requests. What do they mean here, that the actual page request does not send the "no FLoC" HTTP h…
So they might be trialing it this way because of that, to help boost their ad platform and hinder floc , so that google cannot drop third party cookies that easily , as floc’s on browser processing makes google the defacto judge on what information do they add into floc identifiers and what they do not , meanwhile themselves getting all the unrestricted data from their browsers separately.
By hindering mass scale adoption of floc , they’re trying to delay dropping of third party cookies , to slow down google from getting an advantage over them.
Atleast that’s what I think , they might be testing it for other reasons, only an Amazon exec can answer it specifically.
> it's just an HTTP header What would be the total bandwidth, energy and Co2 usage if the largest net entities from Google used this header?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It speaks volumes that Google allows many ad blocking extensions in Chrome Web Store, but blocked an extension that was doing exactly that: https://adnauseam.io/free-adnauseam.html
Does that actually work? It seems like clicking on every ad would be easy to filter out.
Unless you were studying the impact of ads you receive based on cohort, like https://their.tube.
Trying to block this is a losing battle. The whole privacy-first angle is so disingenuous, too. Is there a way we can just obfuscate / ruin our data with them? Like a tool or browser extension I can run that clicks / visits a bunch of random links and totally trashes which "cohort" Google thinks I belong in. I'd pay for this more than paying to opt-out. Then serve me all the ads you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The website is really a third party here, the browser is choosing to track users browser history and report a summary statistic on it to anyone who asks, there's nothing the website can do about that. Chrome has promised to listen if websites say they don't want to be included in the browser history they calculate that statistic on, but it's all client side, there is nothing the website can actually do but request th…
> the browser is choosing to track users browser history and report a summary statistic on it to anyone who asks It doesn't work that way at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The website is really a third party here, the browser is choosing to track users browser history and report a summary statistic on it to anyone who asks, there's nothing the website can do about that. Chrome has promised to listen if websites say they don't want to be included in the browser history they calculate that statistic on, but it's all client side, there is nothing the website can actually do but request th…
> the browser is choosing to track users browser history and report a summary statistic on it to anyone who asks It doesn't work that way at all.
If Firefox had larger market share, Chrome wouldn’t have been able to make this opt out for websites rather than opt in because it would have given them a bad public image. I don’t think it’s fair that some company gets to force every website maintainer (most aren’t extremely technical and just use Wordpress or something similar) on earth to muddle through documentation for their particular setups to 1) learn it exis…
While Mozilla obsesses about eye candy, they lose market share because they cannot be bothered to fix decades-old memory management problems in Firefox such that:
1. Memory leaks don't happen,
2. Garbage collection happens silently in the background, and
3. Garbage collection actually frees up memory for new allocations.
This seems like pretty basic stuff; Chrome figured out how to make tabs scale at close to O[1] a long time ago, but in Firefox tabs still feel like they scale as O[n^2].