Nobody is Flying To Join Google's FLoC (theverge.com) 65
Google is all alone with its proposed advertising technology -- FLoC-- to replace third-party cookies. Every major browser that uses the open source Chromium project has declined to use it, and it's unclear what that will mean for the future of advertising on the web. Firefox, Safari, Microsoft Edge, Vivaldi, and Brave have said they are not implementing Google's FLoC into their browsers.
Why would they? (Score:3)
Big Company: Please spend your time and resources to implement a feature, that your users will hate, and all the revenue will go straight back to us!
This feature will allow you to turn off an other similar feature in which your partners may use who helps fund your development efforts.
Re:Why would they? (Score:5, Insightful)
If we could get rid of third party cookies completely then we would improve things.
Add to it other factors that are used for browser fingerprinting [amiunique.org] as well, so the User-Agent string needs to be dumbed down.
So instead of "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:87.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/87.0", just list "Mozilla/5.0". There's rarely need for a server to know what OS you run.
Where does the 700-pound gorilla get trust? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Interesting FP, though I think your point is as muddled as your Subject. The situation can't be that simple because it would imply the google has become insane and stupid (as well as EVIL). So if the situation is more complicated, then I think the problem must go back to a lack of trust.
My perception is that the google has come to understand that trust is a valuable asset, but they are really struggling to understand why no one trusts the 700-pound gorilla, even if the gorilla seems to be happily sleeping w
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Many of the Chromium Browsers made out there, tend to focus on improved privacy and reduced Ad Space. Or for the case of companies like Microsoft, they want to be sure their Ad platform gets more attention.
The trust of Google seems to be shown by the fact that my targeted Ads that I get, are often a mixture of Stuff that my Wife Searches for (on her Computer and Phone), what I search for on my home computer and phone, and My Work related searches. As I expect Google is tracking off of IP Address, so I get
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting to try and trace the influence of things I do on one computer or with one browser as reflected in the ads that appear elsewhere. However I consider the most important aspect is that it shows me how effectively I'm starving the gorilla. If all of my advertising remains unified, and if all of the advertising changes in sync, then I know that the gorilla has very little data to play with. I may even have some solid idea where the gorilla was looking to trigger the change in my ads.
What I'm wor
Re: (Score:2)
That surprises me. Your UID is low enough that you must have known the dangers of investing in a new technology from a major player.
Re: (Score:2)
that your users will hate
[Citation Required] I mean if you ask someone what a cookie is they'll probably ask if you're hungry, and in Europe maybe "That thing that makes popups show up on websites?"
No one cares about this. No one cares about things far more relevant to them than this either. Don't go speaking for users.
Re: (Score:2)
All major browsers are getting rid of third party cookies, Chrome included.
Google may need to provide an alternative to avoid anti-trust problems. Officially their reason is that without third party cookies sites stand to lose 70% of their ad revenue, and FLoC will substantially reduce that loss while maintaining privacy.
I've been following the development process and it doesn't adequately protect privacy. It tries, but the developers don't understand or don't care about the issues. I sometimes wonder if th
Re: (Score:2)
The best reason why other browsers should support it? To subvert it, of course.
If this standard were to come to pass I could see Apple Safari and Firefox simply implementing a system whereby they generate random FLoC Cohort ID for each page visit. One visit and you're in the cohort for Turkish men who frequent car forums and watch archery videos on Youtube, and the next you're a 20-something white kid who listens to K-pop, browses Reddit, and watches JRPG Twitch videos.
FLoC seems to be an easier system to
On the Information Superhighway (Score:3)
The billboards belong along the side of the road, not on our windshield. In our children's chat room. In our bank account. And generally infiltrating every aspect of modern society.
Re: (Score:2)
Billboards are actually a big problem on the road, they are actually much worse than on our computers. There is a lot of distracted driving from billboards.
Re: (Score:2)
No. they aren't actually worse.
Re: (Score:2)
You must not have seen the new backlit digital billboards yet. Between the moving images and the bright light aimed directly at your face, they are at least as bad as someone coming at you with high beams on.
Re: On the Information Superhighway (Score:1)
They don't need to be ranked better or worse. They are both bad.
Re: (Score:2)
You must not have seen the new backlit digital billboards yet. Between the moving images and the bright light aimed directly at your face, they are at least as bad as someone coming at you with high beams on.
Some billboards are like HDR on steroids where displaying an image of the sun would literally singe your eyebrows.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm fine with paying taxes in order to have highways without billboards. I'm fine with paying higher taxes as I make more money to cover other folks who make less so they can also drive on the highways without billboards. If there are particular businesses along the road that cannot survive without billboards every 10 miles, I'm willing to entertain ideas for how else to let the public know about their services that are more "pull" than "push". And I would be very happy if the analogy of highways and billbo
Re: (Score:2)
> The billboards belong along the side of the road,
No. Ban advertising.
This excessive greed is a blight upon society.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that is involved with selling of a product is sufficient.
You're fist mistake is assuming Corporations should have been allowed to be ruled as legal persons in the first place and therefore have the right to (abuse) free speech. That was never the intent for free speech. It was for natural persons to engage in an intellectual discussion, provide critical analysis, to criticize the government without being censored, and provide an avenue for civil and civic discourse on a small scale -- not for Comp
Re: (Score:2)
Blah.
Ironically, that should read:
Your first mistake...
Re: (Score:2)
Just think how much life would improve if all the money spent on advertising was used to make a better product instead!
Nobody is FLOCKING to join google's FLoC (Score:5, Funny)
This title is a missed opportunity
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's what they were going for when they said "flying".
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess... you work for the Department of Redundancy Dept, right?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean they all told google to FLoC off.
Well, of course ... (Score:2)
Nobody is Flying To Join Google's FLoC
No one wants to get flocked by Google -- again ...
[ Or maybe they're just waiting for it to come out of Beta - oh, wait... ]
Now fork off Chromium completely (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
All the browsers currently using Chromium should fork it off into an independent browser engine and leave Google on their own
Tempting, but browsers are complex beasts, especially considering HTML5 and ALL of the things that it brings with it. That's not to say that it cannot be done, but it is an incredible commitment to a project to maintain standards compliant HTML5 browser and it additionally be relatively quick and responsive. I think a lot of folks forget how massively complicated HTML5 can be in terms of out-of-order rendering and handling JS properly. Not to mention all the wonders that CSS3 brings with it that absolute
Re: (Score:2)
HTML5 is complicated, both because of historical reasons, and the fact that the web has outgrown the usefulness of HTML in general.
When the web started, it was text, some tables and maybe a picture or two. You know, what Markdown is now, pretty much.
Today, a website is pretty much made as an interface to input and retrieve data. Same as Qt, GTK+ or WPF, only... It works cross-platform and doesn't require an installation, which is great for all these utility apps like time management, but less so for complex
"to replace third-party cookies" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, just burn them and don't replace them with anything. Web sites SHOULD be completely isolated from one another.
Which will just result in cookies being replaced with tracking images and/or really extensive fingerprinting, including things like observing the performance of snippets of Javascript code as they interact with your system.
Alternatively, FLoC does ensure that web sites are completely isolated from one another, in the sense that users cannot be tracked across sites. So, Google's proposal achieves your goal while also removing, or at least reducing, the motivation of advertisers to find alternative means of
Re: (Score:2)
Which will just result in cookies being replaced with tracking images and/or really extensive fingerprinting, including things like observing the performance of snippets of Javascript code as they interact with your system.
Alternatively, FLoC does ensure that web sites are completely isolated from one another, in the sense that users cannot be tracked across sites. So, Google's proposal achieves your goal while also removing, or at least reducing, the motivation of advertisers to find alternative means of tracking you.
I think Firefox has it exactly right with strict mode where all state including caching is completely siloed by site. Tracking images are completely worthless against this while separate anti-fingerprinting features address remainder of fingerprinting threats on an ever evolving basis.
Don't let anyone fool you into thinking all of this is fatalistic because it can be done in some other similar way. That is really not the case at all. Strict state isolation by site is an extremely effective countermeasure
Previous track record says (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
This would give Google a tremendous advantage. They would know who you are, they track your web browser and who is logged into it, and no one else would have a clue. The website would ask Google for a snapshot of what sort of things you were interested in, and Google would share whatever the advertiser had paid for. Every advertiser would basically be dependent on Google for any targeting information that they got.
So no, Google is not going to drop this project. Heck, even if no one else gets on board
It is from Google... (Score:2)
It is better than current 3rd party tracking (Score:3)
It is *better* for privacy than the status quo will h third party tracking and supercookies. Knowing that legislation or regulation will eventually come that causes problems for their current setup, they are trying to offer something that isn't *as bad* for privacy while still allowing advertisers to show each ad to the right *type* of person.
One can certainly argue that it's not good enough. It is *better*.
Some want a more radical change that will cause a lot of disruption if the online economy, and there
Re: (Score:2)
It is *better* for privacy than the status quo will h third party tracking and supercookies. Knowing that legislation or regulation will eventually come that causes problems for their current setup, they are trying to offer something that isn't *as bad* for privacy while still allowing advertisers to show each ad to the right *type* of person.
I'll bite. How is it better than isolating cookies by site?
Re: (Score:2)
What the FLoC is it? (Score:2)
Is this another one of Google's magical never-advertised pet projects that NOBODY hears about until it's on death row?
Re: (Score:3)
No, actually. Because this is ads and because Google cares about nothing except adds, they would like very much to make this a success.
Pure Insanity! (Score:3)
It is amazing that this is even a discussion. These "advertisers" can track anyone that use a browser. This data is sold to anyone that can find a use for it. Spy agencies, police, and even the IRS are using this data to track people down. This data is being purchased to preempt the laws that would otherwise prohibit collection. I'd like to see this tracking end for good and get back to the spirit of the privacy laws we've created over the last century.
I get that its an advertisers dream, but it is a dystopian nightmare.
--
Every exit is an entry somewhere else. - Tom Stoppard
Meh (Score:2)
Silly people think they can say no to Google (Score:2)
Ha! (Score:1)
Firefox, Safari, Microsoft Edge, Vivaldi, and Brave have said they are not implementing Google's FLoC into their browsers.
Mozilla prolly couldn't properly integrate the change even if they wanted
Apple and Microsoft are building their own things.
Vivaldi, Brave, and the rest are going to have it. Google will force it in, then break anyone not using it.
Here's a novel idea (Score:2)
Having a browser that doesn't track users.
It's actually super simple: Just don't
Re: (Score:2)
It is not the browser that tracks users. It is the server-side applications using mechanisms in the browser. The browser can just make it harder or easier to do this tracking. The problem is that if the browser makes it too hard, other things start to break. The best balance is, IMO, to offer the standard mechanisms (cookies, local storage) and combine that with ad-blocker tech under user control.
For example, I use Vivaldi as browser with just a few cookies allowing to stay permanently, the rest gets discar
Excellent (Score:3)
Basically means that advertising is not ween not only as immoral, but collaborating with advertisers is seen as bad for business and as alienating users. Gives me hope we will get this plague under control eventually. Fortunately, browser makers do not need huge revenue streams, so they can afford to just say "no".
Is Trade Desk doing the right thing? (Score:2)
Full disclosure: I'm a Trade Desk shareholder.
Trade Desk created and open-sourced Web ID 2.0. Big advertising firms like Publicis are joining it. Is this the start of something huge for TTD? Is this the alternative to Google that everyone will prefer?
Re: (Score:2)
Trade Desk created and open-sourced Web ID 2.0.
Unified ID 2.0, rather.
The data shows... (Score:1)
The data shows people are saying '"FLoC" you!' to Google. Let's trust a new standard controlled by Google to give them more control.
Basically, we're "FLoC"-ed by Google "Don't be evil."
JoshK.
EFF does not like it (Score:4, Informative)
Pretty good writeup on their stance about it since I was not familiar
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-idea [eff.org]
I was also going to make a pithy remark about a commercial company doing this but at the very least it is open sourced and there are so many on /. smarter than I with this type of thing that could evaluate.
https://github.com/WICG/floc
Unpossible! (Score:2)
Slashdotters have said time and time again that thanks to Chromium Google is now all powerful and gets to dictate to the world what everyone else will do. It's just unfathomable that yet again the alarmist sensationalism was proven false.
Ads in standards - only in USA (please) (Score:2)
Trying to put ad technology into de facto internet standards really shows off that backwater thinking that makes other parts of the world want to keep a good distance from USA so that it doesn't contaminate the rest.