[HN Gopher] Nobody is joining Google's FLoC
___________________________________________________________________
Nobody is joining Google's FLoC
Author : Analemma_
Score : 137 points
Date : 2021-04-16 17:43 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| xnx wrote:
| I'm definitely in the minority of commenters on these FLoC
| threads. I hate that 3rd party cookies exist, and support FLoC if
| it would hasten the demise of 3rd party cookies. It seems like
| many consider the alternative to FLoC to be an anonymous web
| where content can be accessed without login. The migration of
| content into walled gardens like Instagram seems more likely to
| me.
| monkeybutton wrote:
| One of the contenders for replacing 3rd party cookies is The
| Trade Desk's Unified ID 2.0, which if I understand correctly,
| would require users to login in everywhere and be tracked in
| exchange for free content. But it's going to competing with
| other Google and Facebook for managing users' online
| identities.
| livre wrote:
| The idea that FLoC is a more privacy-friendly alternative to
| third-party cookies is deeply flawed, please read
| [this](https://github.com/WICG/floc/issues/100).
| xnx wrote:
| Thanks. Good thread. Sounds like FloC is definitely more
| anonymous than third party cookies that are already in use
| today. There might are some hypothetical situations with FLoC
| where some information might be able to be inferred given
| sufficient data, but this is not trivial/direct like it is
| today.
| z77dj3kl wrote:
| No, that attack _is_ trivial and direct, that 's the
| problem.
| livre wrote:
| I have my doubts about the "more anonymous" part, mainly
| because 3p cookies are constrained to a single browser on a
| single device and can be easily erased or blocked, but your
| browsing habits that will land you on a certain cohort will
| remain the same across devices so you could technically be
| tracked cross-device even if you don't sync your browsing
| history or cookies (if I am reading right the way FLoC
| works).
|
| Quick edit: you are certainly right that it will be less
| direct and more effort than cookies.
| thowaway0417 wrote:
| Why do you prefer empowering Google even more to walled garden
| model?
|
| Walled gardens are good, at least in that there are several of
| them. This means the Web as seen by the average consumer is
| still somewhat decentralized.
| danShumway wrote:
| > if it would hasten the demise of 3rd party cookies
|
| Will FLoC speed this up?
|
| As far as I know, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari are already
| largely publicly committed to phasing out 3rd party cookies
| over the next couple years. I guess FLoC might move that
| deadline up a bit?
|
| But I suspect some critics of FLoC are looking at the proposal
| as a compromise that we don't need to make. The thinking is, at
| the point where we have public statements from every single
| major browser, including Chrome and Edge, that 3rd party
| cookies are going to get phased out, why do we need to throw
| the advertising industry a bone? We won this particular fight,
| 3rd party cookies are going out the door. Now (the thinking is)
| we just need to make sure that counter-proposals like FLoC and
| FPS[0] don't reverse the gains we've made.
|
| I'm not completely sure how to characterize Google's recent
| proposals, but an arguably reasonable take that I've seen
| online is that Google somehow got peer-pressured into making a
| very public commitment to remove 3rd-party cookies, that they
| no longer feel they can back down from that commitment, and
| that a lot of their recent proposals seem to be attempts to
| find some way to get out of that deal. First Party Sets in
| particular are just a very conveniently timed proposal. I
| suspect this take is at least a little simplistic, but if it is
| at all accurate then now is a very good time to increase
| pressure on Google, not decrease it.
|
| So I think we might be in a situation where the onus is on
| people proposing compromise to prove that compromises will make
| a difference, because I don't take it for granted at this point
| that FLoC's acceptance or rejection will change anything about
| how 3rd party cookies are handled in the future.
|
| [0]: https://github.com/privacycg/first-party-sets
| SimeVidas wrote:
| What's wrong with just showing normal ads like we had for over
| 100 years? Is tracking really needed to prevent walled gardens?
| gopi wrote:
| CPM price for targeted ads is lot more than untargeted ads.
| So likely the publishers will increase the number of ads per
| page to maintain the same eCPM yield. Also the ads will
| optimize for top of the funnel (clicks) than bottom
| (conversion). So we will start to see aggressive & intrusive
| ads. (remember the "punch the monkey" ads from the early
| 2000s?)
| SimeVidas wrote:
| But does the money go to the publisher? I've read somewhere
| that most of it (like 90%) goes to the ad tech middlemen.
| If the ad does not track, there is no ad tech, so more
| money goes to the publisher.
| coldpie wrote:
| > CPM price for targeted ads is lot more than untargeted
| ads.
|
| Only because they're viewed. If we can get everyone to
| install an ad blocker, that price will plummet, and
| business models that aren't based on abusing users will be
| allowed to succeed.
| Google234 wrote:
| If that happens many many websites won't be able to
| operate for free like they do now.
| likpok wrote:
| This means that the only way to make money is via
| subscriptions or cross promoting something that makes you
| the real money. The walled gardens, being able to both
| avoid Adblock and sell targeted ads, will do quite well.
|
| If your goal is the open web of yore, that doesn't
| exactly sound like a win.
| mijamo wrote:
| That is only true because targeted ads are possible.
|
| In a world where there is no targeted ads, companies still
| need to get clients and compete. The marketing budgets of
| companies would not miraculously go down if targeted ads
| ceased to exist, the money would just go to other means,
| and non targeted ads are a very good candidate (also they
| can be extremely hard to block as they can be served first
| party if needed)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The marketing budgets of companies would not
| miraculously go down if targeted ads ceased to exist
|
| If marketing returns drop, all other things being equal,
| budgets being cut is the natural consequence, because
| less spending will be possible before declining marginal
| returns result in negative net returns to further
| spending.
| gopi wrote:
| Most of the internet ads are direct response. As long as
| companies get back more than they spend they keep
| spending. So there is no set "budget". If direct response
| goes away there is not enough brand budget to buy all the
| ad impressions so the prices go down a lot.
| NotPractical wrote:
| I think it's probably naive to assume that, if FLoC was
| implemented, advertisers would just stop using their existing
| tracking technologies, which allow for better tracking than
| FLoC offers. I imagine most would continue to use these, plus
| FLoC.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| But the existing tracking technologies will be going away.
| 3rd party cookies soon enough will be blocked by default on
| the major browsers.
| xnx wrote:
| Advertisers will not have the option to use third party
| cookies when they are disabled by default in Chrome (what
| Google is working toward).
| mpol wrote:
| Third party cookies are already on the way out, allthough it is
| going very slowly. But if that is already happening, I see no
| reason to replace it with something that is going to stay and
| is only slightly better. Being patient is easier and better, it
| will be a question of a few years I suppose, instead of, I
| don't know, forever? :)
| xnx wrote:
| Content providers want third party cookies. Users have no
| idea what third party cookies are. Any deprecation of third
| party cookies will have to come from the user-agent (Safari
| and Chrome being the only ones that matter).
| amluto wrote:
| Content providers don't. Advertising networks do. If the
| whole industry moved to content-based advertising, the
| content providers would be just fine.
| glsdfgkjsklfj wrote:
| Yes.
|
| And it is exactly what is happening just fine. Thank you
| very much.
| glsdfgkjsklfj wrote:
| This!
|
| All the clueless/guerrilla marketing(?) people defending
| FLoC/(faux de-)CentralizedIDs as an either-or choice for
| getting rid of 3rd party cookies are disingenuously or
| maliciously trying to steer the discussion to the wrong
| direction.
|
| None of that is a requirement to get rid of 3rd party cookie!
| just like Microsoft Silverlight was not a requirement to get
| rid of Adobe Flash, no matter how much microsoft employees
| wanted you to believe that.
| SquareWheel wrote:
| Is FLoC considered more or less invasive than the advertisement
| ID used by platforms like iOS and Windows 10? I believe these
| systems are also opt-out.
| Daniel_sk wrote:
| iOS is now switching to opt-in.
| jpollock wrote:
| Aren't IP header fields granular enough for most tracking
| purposes?
|
| On mobile, you can do interesting things with Header Enrichment,
| which helps even more.
|
| IPv6 should "just work", but it seems there's fingerprinting
| available.
|
| That leaves residential IPv4, which you can solve with some
| coordination between site owners.
|
| This seems to say - Yes?
|
| https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/testing/paper/...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCP/IP_stack_fingerprinting
|
| Once you get some sort of fingerprint, then all that's needed is
| for one site to share with another and they're back to tracking
| across devices and sites.
| soared wrote:
| These browsers make up less than 4% of market share and their
| actions are largely meaningless. Only fringe users (IE readers of
| hackernews) use these browsers.
|
| If you're looking for info on adtech changes outside of chrome,
| look at safari. Apple has been making big pro-privacy moves for a
| couple years, and they actually have meaningful market share.
| pdq wrote:
| Safari is the browser for iOS, so your 4% number is not
| accurate.
| solosoyokaze wrote:
| Between FLoC and AMP, Google's attempts to destroy the web have
| surpassed even IE levels of toxicity. It's good to see the
| consumer focused forks of Chromium take a stand here.
| jhoechtl wrote:
| There are still Firefox and Safari free of FLoC
| acheron wrote:
| Using any version of Chromium still contributes to Google's
| attempts to destroy the web. If they actually cared they would
| use a different engine.
| blacktriangle wrote:
| You say that like there's another option.
| henriquez wrote:
| Firefox is a good option!
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| Firefox is the FreeBSD of browsers. Only good for very
| specific reasons as compared to Linux (Chromium).
| unicornporn wrote:
| Google's ~64% market share is bad enough as it is. Android being
| the dominant OS helps, I guess.
| 74d-fe6-2c6 wrote:
| I just googled that FLoC stands for Federated Learning of Cohorts
| ... excuse my superficial knee jerk reaction but I feel like
| nothing good can come from something named like that.
| jhoechtl wrote:
| No wonder, it's a dead-hug for everyone but Google.
| linuxhansl wrote:
| FWIW, I've been blocking all 3rd party cookies in Firefox for
| years.
| marvinblum wrote:
| As a website owner, you can opt out by setting the Permissions-
| Policy header to "interest-cohort=()". I rolled that out for
| pirsch.io today.
| pjerem wrote:
| How about sending random awkward cohorts to the browser ? If we
| are able to make targeted ads to be only about dildos and
| viagra, maybe we can increase Adblock usage drastically ?
| (While helping people with real erecting issues as a side
| effect)
| tomxor wrote:
| Cmon, this is as backward as the "do not track" header...
| asking websites to explicitly opt out... in order to protect
| users from the users's own browser!?
|
| No, just don't build stupid things into browsers.
| sanxiyn wrote:
| Let's say, Chrome has a bug that causes a crash unless you
| send Workaround-Chrome-Bug header. Why wouldn't you send the
| header until the bug is fixed in Chrome?
|
| How is this situation in any way different?
| marvinblum wrote:
| Yeah, it's stupid, but the only option we have right now if
| the user does not disable FLoC in Chrome. We also honor the
| DNT header btw :)
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Chrome users should just run a local proxy that inserts the
| header for them.
| takeda wrote:
| Chrome users should seriously reconsider switching to
| Firefox. We've created another Internet Explorer.
| marvinblum wrote:
| That is a good solution for corporate networks.
| rudasn wrote:
| So, I was experimenting with this concept yesterday but
| couldn't get it to work...
|
| How do you set up a local proxy to do this kind of stuff?
| I got up to the point of changing request/response
| headers but couldn't manage to actually edit the data
| going through, esp when dealing with ssl (which is the
| point really, of ssl).
| 2bitencryption wrote:
| Is it just me, or is FLoC simply an act? A way for Google to say,
| "See, regulators, we're trying! You don't have to regulate us,
| we're doing it on our own!"
|
| While they know full well the web will never get on board with
| this.
|
| Seems like just a way to buy time, to muddy the waters. Make the
| ecosystem more complicated. Pin the blame on others for not
| getting on board with your attempt to "fix" the situation. "We
| tried our best, but Mozilla won't join us!!"
| tmccrary55 wrote:
| Kinda Gates or Ballmer era Microsoftish?
| soared wrote:
| I don't agree with this, but there is evidence that kind of
| supports it. The W3c group set up to build on privacy sandbox
| that came up with floc/petrel/etc wrote an open letter to the
| w3c advisory about how google was refusing to work with the
| group.
|
| https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/17/aggrieved_ad_tech_typ...
| rchaud wrote:
| If it is, it's a pretty poor act. It doesn't matter if Firefox,
| Brave and Edge don't want to use Floc. Google controls Chrome
| and almost all of the non-FB digital ad ecosystem. They can
| still derive enormous benefits from it once third party cookies
| are extinct.
| nonbirithm wrote:
| The way I see FLoC is that it's nothing more than a compromise.
|
| This isn't a web standards feature like WebMIDI or WebHID that
| fulfills the (ever expanding) requests for features from web
| developers. It isn't a feature that the average user would ever
| ask for. It's simply a way for Google's ads business to
| continue functioning in spite of a web community that is
| gradually becoming privacy-conscious.
| chmod775 wrote:
| "Okay, it is true I can do nothing to force you to eat this
| pile of poo and I have nothing as means of payment, but let's
| make a compromise: How about you eat half?"
|
| How about no, Google?
|
| DRM made its way into browsers only barely, and in that case
| they at least had something people wanted.
| xmly wrote:
| Because the 3rd party cookies are still here.
| dheera wrote:
| Does this affect Chromium at all?
| livre wrote:
| Try running your Chromium with these flags[1] and see what that
| page says about it. If it says anything other than "not
| supported by this browser" then Chromium supports it (may not
| be enabled by default though).
|
| [1] https://floc.glitch.me/
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Just have it default-off, allow the user to turn it on if they
| want to be "ad targeted".
|
| I mean I keep hearing how, as a consumer, I want this.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| As a consumer, i want targeting features default-off.
| drusepth wrote:
| As a consumer, I want targeting features default-on, but I
| also don't mind too much having to turn them on manually.
| throwaway2048 wrote:
| why do you want them default on?
| sanxiyn wrote:
| I think it's pretty simple. drusepth wants targeting on,
| so of course drusepth also wants default on. It is
| generally desirable for defaults to match what you want
| since it saves you effort to configure.
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| I am okay with targeted ads, and I know others are too.
| The other day, my Dad said he's happy that Amazon and
| Google are showing him the products he's been browsing
| for recently. They bought a mattress and are looking at
| buying another to replace the other beds.
| [deleted]
| the_lonely_road wrote:
| Do you support organ donation being opt-in as well?
| guillem_lefait wrote:
| Once you're dead, GDPR does not apply to you/your data
| anymore.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| Holy false equivalence batman.
|
| Organ donation is a great good for society, saves lives.
| Google's FLOC does what exactly?
| qnsi wrote:
| ad targeting is good for economy and small businesses.
| Imagine all the wealth created by being able to show people
| ads they might be interested in seeing
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| I'm extremely anti-ads and tracking.
|
| Part of that was because I used to work for a website
| that was an ads publishing platform.
|
| And I'm here to tell you: More accurate metrics don't
| actually generate any kind of wealth. What they do is
| allow ad buyers to push down the prices they have to
| offer to publishers for clicks or lower the overall
| numbers of impressions they are willing to buy, based on
| the targeting metrics they have for the publisher.
|
| More precise, fine-grained targeting information = fewer
| and lower value spends to gain the same conversion rate
| value.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| did small businesses not exist before google?
| pydry wrote:
| It's not really great for small businesses to get their
| margin eaten by Google.
|
| Without ads users wouldn't stop using small businesses
| products. They would just go looking for them in places
| that aren't as monetized. When they do, the small
| business will get to keep more of the margin.
| qzw wrote:
| You do want Google to be able to continue paying $200K+ to
| fresh college grads, don't you? Or do you want them
| starving in the streets, you heartless barbarian?
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| Yes of course, my body my choice
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| Heh, well, it's opt-out here in the UK now.
| jjgreen wrote:
| Opt-out donation, it's not really "donation" is it?
| quaffapint wrote:
| I've spoken with more than 1 non-tech person who has said if
| they're going to see ads, they want them to be at least
| relevant, targeting nor not.
| mehlmao wrote:
| Surely they'd be happy to opt-in to FLoC.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| I've blocked ads for so long that I can't remember the last
| time I saw one. However, if I had to have them, I think I
| could tolerate ads that were relevant to the content of the
| page.
|
| If I'm reading an article about gardening, I could understand
| seeing an ad or two about gardening tools. It's what my mind
| is focused on, it's relevant, and it's even potentially
| something I might want to buy. This doesn't require FLoC,
| cookies, or any other form of tracking.
|
| What I do not want to happen after reading my gardening
| article, is to be dogged relentlessly for days with ads for
| gardening tools on every website I visit, and in apps on my
| phone. It's creepy, it's irrelevant to what I'm currently
| focused on, and it's creating a negative impression in my
| mind about the businesses that are appearing in the ads.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-16 22:01 UTC)