Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues
1–10 of 128 posts
Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues
#2"Don't be Evil" wasn't a motto --- it was a warning.
A peak into their mindset that foretold what they were thinking and where they were headed.
They sell you and your privacy to their "associates" --- aka, anyone willing to pay in some way. Their concern for your interests only extends to the level required to invade your privacy.
The thing I find most disappointing is the fact that it took so many so long to realize this.
Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues
#3i hope we find each other in our versions of the internet
Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues
#4This comes from the people distributing an ad-fuelled cryptocurrency called "Basic Attention Token". I'll take their word with two grains of salt and a tall glass of water, please.
Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues
#5This comes from the people distributing an ad-fuelled cryptocurrency called "Basic Attention Token". I'll take their word with two grains of salt and a tall glass of water, please.
At least you get paid for having your privacy treated as a commodity. If these people are selling indentured labor, then google is straight up promoting slavery. Brave is obviously the lesser evil.
Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues
#6This comes from the people distributing an ad-fuelled cryptocurrency called "Basic Attention Token". I'll take their word with two grains of salt and a tall glass of water, please.
They aren't forcing it on you. It's opt-in. Google's trying to force things on all their users: manifest V3, this, et cetera.
Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues
#7"Don't be Evil" wasn't a motto --- it was a warning. A peak into their mindset that foretold what they were thinking and where they were headed. They sell you and your privacy to their "associates" --- aka, anyone willing to pay in some way. Their concern for your interests only extends to the level required to invade your privacy. The thing I find most disappointing is the fact that it took so many so long to realiz…
Totally, or maybe a canary clause.
Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues
#8I would use Brave if they didn't use chrome as a backend. We need more diversity in rendering engines otherwise things like FLoC happen.
Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues
#9I would use Brave if they didn't use chrome as a backend. We need more diversity in rendering engines otherwise things like FLoC happen.
FLoC has nothing to do with rendering and can easily be removed from the codebase. People make this argument a lot but I don't think it makes logical sense. We all use libicu too, what does that ultimately matter?
Re: Rebranding FLoC Without Addressing Key Privacy Issues
#10This comes from the people distributing an ad-fuelled cryptocurrency called "Basic Attention Token". I'll take their word with two grains of salt and a tall glass of water, please.
At least you get paid for having your privacy treated as a commodity. If these people are selling indentured labor, then google is straight up promoting slavery. Brave is obviously the lesser evil.
"Lesser evil" implies Chrome and Brave are the only 2 reasonable options. You could install Firefox or ungoogled-chromium and an ad/tracker blocker.