[HN Gopher] Google's FLoC Is a Terrible Idea ___________________________________________________________________ Google's FLoC Is a Terrible Idea Author : wyldfire Score : 281 points Date : 2021-03-04 15:59 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.eff.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.eff.org) | Noughmad wrote: | I really don't understand the problem here. It looks like FLoC | will entirely depend on the browser (which Google controls if | it's Chrome). So the browser will analyze your browsing history | (and since it's Google, it will probably connect to everything | else Google knows about you) to request targeted ads. | | But, what about the people who don't use Chrome? I would hope | that most people who know what EFF is already don't. Firefox will | surely come with a way to disable it, or you'll configure it to | always send "my little pony" or something like this. | | In the end, this seems to really be about Google (with a browser) | competing against Facebook and other ad providers (who don't have | a browser). | jdlshore wrote: | The big problem with FLoC, as I see it, is that it makes | fingerprinting _vastly_ easier. Your FLoC bucket narrows you | down to one of several thousand users, rather than one of | several million, and that 's before fingerprinting applies. | | Ironically, it seems that FLoC makes user tracking _easier,_ | not harder. | | I see no upside in FLoC for me as a user, and plenty of | potential downside. I'm glad I use Firefox. | jackson1442 wrote: | Without making any drastic changes to my browser to | intentionally inhibit fingerprinting, I already have a unique | fingerprint according to https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/, so | this honestly doesn't signal a change to me at all. I just | run uBlock Origin to block trackers/ads. | musicale wrote: | Are CCPA (privacy act, not credit protection act) (and | California's data broker law) and GDPR having any affect on data | brokers and credit bureaus? | | edit: apparently credit bureaus are exempt from CCPA | richardwhiuk wrote: | I don't think GDPR has really tested it's legal teeth yet. | sofixa wrote: | https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ | esperent wrote: | The biggest fine so far is EUR50,000,000 against Google. | Ironic considering the topic of this thread, but not | surprising. | oytis wrote: | "Legitimate interest" | M2Ys4U wrote: | The UK's ICO _knows_ that the adtech industry is breaking the | law. | | They've purposely done _nothing_ about it. They 've even | bragged on their blog and in their annual statement that | they've done nothing about it :( | beermonster wrote: | Citations? | karmakaze wrote: | > Federated Learning of Cohorts (FLoC) | | I hate the use of new/uncommon acronyms/initialisms without | immediate clarification, a form of clickbait. So many paragraphs | down to see what it's called. Expected more from EFF. | jcrawfordor wrote: | In the case of reverse-engineered acronyms like this one, I | think there's a judgment call that you need to make: in some | cases it is simply not useful to expand the term. They explain | what FLoC _means_ very early on, but the expansion of the | acronym conveys very little information since it is technical, | somewhat nonspecific, and it 's clear that the acronym was | designed before its meaning. | | Consider, for example, that it's uncommon to expand military | program acronyms because their meaning is often less useful | than saying "it's just a word." | inopinatus wrote: | The EFF is also milking the super creepy feeling from Google | naming their technology for labeling humans, after the group | noun for sheep. | ncann wrote: | Come here to say the same, I actually had to click on the | github link to learn what it meant first. Should've explained | it the first time it's brought up instead. | dleslie wrote: | This captures my feelings on the issue: | | > That framing is based on a false premise that we have to choose | between "old tracking" and "new tracking." It's not either-or. | Instead of re-inventing the tracking wheel, we should imagine a | better world without the myriad problems of targeted ads. | | I don't want to be tracked. I never have wanted to be tracked. I | shouldn't have to aggressively opt-out of tracking; it should be | a service one must opt-in to receive. And it's not something we | can trust industry to correct properly. This is precisely the | role that privacy-protecting legislation should be undertaking. | | Stop spying on us, please. | 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: | <sarcasm>But what about a "free and open web".</sarcasm> | | These constant references to "the web" when discussing certain | companies is annoying. The www does not belong to any | incorporated middleman. I do not care how much traffic they are | curently in control of. The www is a medium not a small, | privileged group of messengers. How is this company even | contemplating something like this. Answer: Because a majority | of users choose a browser controlled by an advertising company. | WTF. | | This company will no doubt exert influence/control over the | "standards" process and next thing we know, every developer | working on a browser will feel obligated to "implement FLoC". | Maybe this is an either-or question. Who is the www for: users | or advertisers. The middleman needs both. Advertisers need the | middleman and users. But users do not need advertisers. And, | truly, they do not need the middleman. Users are creating the | content. The middleman just sits in between, spying on | everything. | | Maybe there needs to be more than one www. Maybe there needs to | be a non-commercial www for smart people. | C19is20 wrote: | Democracy would work if I were in charge. | frashelaw wrote: | As long as it remains massively profitable to collect every | ounce of data from us, tech corporations are going to keep | doing this. | | Even with some existing laws, the profits are enough that they | are willing to flagrantly violate these laws and simply pay | meager fines. | | It's also unlikely that we will ever get significant | legislation to protect us from this either, because all these | tech profits allow big tech to buy our government, because | policy is heavily swayed by corporations. | evrydayhustling wrote: | It seems like FLoC could make it easier to opt out centrally | rather than going through a mess of specific (dis)approvals for | the specific trackers on every site. Maybe it could even be a | good place for a dial - "I'll expose a 4-bit cohort, but | nothing more specific." | | It also seems like FLoC could make it more politically viable | to crack down non-consensual tracking. Publishers wouldn't be | able to say "we have no choice but to deal with this [third | party tracker] scum" but could continue to gate content by | subscription or (consensual) FLoC as necessary for their | business model. | | Pushing publishing and advertising towards proactive consent | about targeting puts them into a dialog with the market about | what's ok, instead of letting them hide behind a bunch of | shifting tracker businesses. | bmarquez wrote: | No tracking is obviously the best choice. | | But if FLoC requires the browser to do the tracking itself, | would it be possible to fork Chromium, disable tracking, and | have FLoC return fake or random data instead? | [deleted] | contravariant wrote: | Eh opting out of cookies is pretty easy, and opting out of | any background fingerprinting is impossible in either | scenario. | fckthisguy wrote: | Opting out of cookies is often not very easy because of: | | - hidden and confusingly worded opt-out dialogues - | different cookie banners on ever site - dark patterns such | as requiring far more clicks to opt-out than in - opt-out | dialogues with lots of technical wording - sites that just | don't provide opt-out options - sites that purposely | degrade the ux if you opt-out | | All these mean that the average "not technical" user (such | as my parents) cannot reliability opt-out. | | We ought to have opt-in be the default. | dleslie wrote: | Cookies are only a part of the story. Browser | fingerprinting and session state sharing goes beyond | whether or not one consents to a tracking cookie. | okl wrote: | > It seems like FLoC could make it easier to opt out | centrally rather than going through a mess of specific | (dis)approvals for the specific trackers on every site. | | Wasn't this already the idea behind the DNT (Do Not Track) | header? | jedberg wrote: | Yeah, but it relied on the server to honor it. FLoC at | least comes from the browser. | dleslie wrote: | It still coerces consent with a bad default. Sites will | refuse to operate unless the FLoC is enabled, or will become | obnoxious to use with it disabled. However, if FLoC were | disabled by default then sites would be less likely to | provide an obnoxiously bad service to those with it disabled. | | The best default is not to track at all. | evrydayhustling wrote: | I don't think FLoC provides a default - that's the | browser's job. We can all guess what Chrome's default will | be (although I'd also expect that Incognito will disable or | at least reset FLoC), but regulations like GDPR/CCPA might | still require affirmative consent. | | Re: obnoxiously bad service, frankly I think sites should | run however they want as long as they are truly transparent | about it (not just a buried EULA). I prefer open sites, but | nobody should be forced into service just because I have an | IP. | ummonk wrote: | If I understand correctly, couldn't you just provide a | static FLoC that isn't personalized? How will the sites | know whether what they're receiving is actually | personalized or not? | judge2020 wrote: | A lot of sites already break (sometimes in non obvious | ways) with an ad blocker, so I don't see how this changes | anything. | fckthisguy wrote: | Exactly. The option we choose should be better than what | we currently have. | dleslie wrote: | By dramatically changing the available defaults. | | If most browsers aggressively blocked ads then more sites | would test to see if blocking ads breaks the site. | Spivak wrote: | If more people block ads then more effort is also devoted | to circumventing ad blockers. Ad supported sites | typically don't care about the experience of viewers who | aren't revenue generating. | inopinatus wrote: | The flock is coerced by the herding dogs. | | Google is the farmer, websites are the dogs, are we are the | livestock. | | (Some might say, in a fit of charitability, "oh but it's a | bird reference", citing prior work. To which I say no; | don't convince yourself for one moment that Google's army | of PhDs didn't notice the sheep allusion. They are not that | dumb. But they are this arrogant.) | izacus wrote: | What's tracking in your definition here? Is counting display of | an ad tracking? Load of an image on page? Is logging nginx | entry for your page load tracking? Is responding with correct | image for your browser user-agent tracking? | | I'm sometimes confused what is covered under this term and I'd | kinda like to know where the line here is drawn. What exactly | are we talking about here? | dleslie wrote: | When site A and site B are able to communicate to each other | that I am a unique individual who has a particular session or | sessions open. | michaelbuckbee wrote: | My understanding of FLOC is that it would meet that | standard. | | That it would independently identify you to Site A and Site | B as a person in a particular cohort. | dillondoyle wrote: | in addition i haven't heard that google is dramatically | changing GA tracking? | dleslie wrote: | That's enough information to begin to uniquely identify | me, along with other commonly available factors; like | GeoIP and so forth. | [deleted] | ChrisLomont wrote: | Answering any packet request from your end is enough to | uniquely identify you. How do you propose TCP/IP would | work without unique addresses? | dleslie wrote: | From my original comment: | | > This is precisely the role that privacy-protecting | legislation should be undertaking. | probably_wrong wrote: | I fear that your questions reduce the problem to the point | where no answer is possible. Loading the Y Combinator logo in | here is almost certainly not tracking, but loading an | invisible, 1px-by-1px gif in an email almost certainly | counts. It's missing the forest for the trees. | | The simplest definition of tracking I can come up with is | "collect data about me that can (and often, is) used to build | a profile of me and my behavior". The NGinx log could or | could not be tracking, depending on whether you use it to | diagnose issues ("we should optimize this picture, it's | loading too slow for too many people") or to profile _me_ ( | "ID 12345 uses a 56K modem, let's sell him a new one"). But | no perfect definition exists because everyone has different | thresholds of what they are okay with. | [deleted] | izacus wrote: | If I understand FloC correctly though, it sends your | profile/tags/interesting topics from your owned client | software. So this basically means that if you have a | browser like Firefox, it could send a preset cohort set to | server that doesn't build your tracking profile and gives | you things you're interested in. | | To me this seems like a win? It allows you as a person to | control how your ad profile is built (and if it's sent at | all) and doesn't send your data to servers anymore? | | (Please correct me if I misunderstood the technology.) | seanhunter wrote: | What I want is them not to know anything about my profile | or what I want and them not to send anything about me to | anyone unless I ask them to. Which I'm not going to. | | That would be an actual win. Not showing me ads at all | would be an additional icing on the cake. I even don't | want to see ads about things I'm interested in. Just | nothing. | sodality2 wrote: | If this doesn't get taken advantage of by google, this | would be awesome. | | I bet if a random open source project of the same kind | were released, it would probably be pointed at as a | reason why Google is evil ('see there are good | alternatives!'). But because Google is doing it, people | are (rightly) wary and (definitely not rightly) calling | it evil without doing research. | bogwog wrote: | > But because Google is doing it, people are (rightly) | wary and (definitely not rightly) calling it evil without | doing research. | | That's what happens when no one trusts you. It's human | nature, and logical arguments aren't going to change | that. | | If anything, it's a good thing for society if Google | burns despite trying to do something genuinely good (not | that FLoC is good), because it shows others that there | are real consequences to betraying the trust of your | customers. | | We lose one untrustworthy company today, and gain many | trustworthy companies in the future. That's a net | positive for society! | Veserv wrote: | If they will not send data to their servers anymore, then | they can easily regain trust by just introducing a | contractual obligation to pay out a reasonable sum if | they are found to be doing so that would disincentive | them from doing so. Say 1 year of revenue or ~$100B? | Since they have control over their own actions and there | is no reason to send data to their servers anymore, then | that would be pure upside with no risk if they are being | truthful. However, until they make promises where success | and failure can be evaluated by non-technical individuals | and there is actual downside when failing to fulfill | those promises, I see no reason for anyone to believe | their claims if they will not put their money where their | mouth is. | wpietri wrote: | Personally, what I'm interested in is not seeing ads. I | think the notion that more relevant ads are somehow | better for the user is mostly industry propaganda. Ad | targeting is about finding people more susceptible to | manipulation into spending money. User satisfaction is at | best an epiphenomenon of the ad industry, and at worst is | directly counter to their goals. | anchpop wrote: | If you don't want to see ads, why not run an adblocker or | avoid visiting sites that show ads? There's no good | option right now, if you have a paywall people will | complain and almost no one will visit your site, and if | you have any ads at all people will complain about that | too. (I remember an HN article about a guy who had a | banner advertising his own product on his personal blog, | absolutely no tracking, that got added to uBlock | adblocking lists.) | | If you want you can use duckduckgo with ads disabled in | settings, visit HN and wikipedia and stackoverflow | (although they have the #hireme thing), pay $10/month for | youtube and spotify premium so you don't see ads there, | etc. And then use ghostery to disable third-party cookies | and things of that nature. What more do you want the | industry to do? | sofixa wrote: | Do you use Web Monetisation ( as in, pay)? If you don't, and | don't want to be tracked for ads, how do you propose things | work? | shawkinaw wrote: | You can have ads without tracking. Print, radio, TV all do | this. | sofixa wrote: | You can, but do you remember the times on the Internet when | that was the case? I vaguely remember cents per thousands | of ad clicks, which would make most websites financially | unviable. | hobs wrote: | And you can justify all sorts of economic activity based | on deeply unethical behavior, but should you? | reaperducer wrote: | _You can, but do you remember the times on the Internet | when that was the case? I vaguely remember cents per | thousands of ad clicks, which would make most websites | financially unviable._ | | I do, and the amount of money webmasters made back then | was much better. | | Some of the sites I ran got $10-$15 CPM. Ad campaigns | targeted to my sites' niches could be up to $25 CPM. | | Ever since Google introduced AdWords and its race to the | bottom, content-heavy web sites are lucky to get 10C/ | CPM. | | But since the new kids on the block have never | experienced a profitable web without tracking, they don't | know any better and think it didn't exist. | dleslie wrote: | That was a lovely time to be on the internet: there was | greater incentive to create interesting and focused niche | content. | esperent wrote: | Do you mean this? | | https://webmonetization.org/ | | It barely exists so far and is only implemented by a single | browser that I'd never heard of (Puma). Hardly fair to demand | if people are using it yet. | | > how do you propose things work? | | We go back to advertising without tracking. | sofixa wrote: | Indeed, their page doesn't make it obvious, but on a | computer you can use extensions for Chrome and Firefox. | Puma is the only option on mobile though ( never heard of | it either). | gwenzek wrote: | Which extension ? The landing page is terrible for a | prospective user. | input_sh wrote: | https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/coil/ | | https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/coil/locbifcbel | dmn... | | I agree that their web presentation leaves a lot to be | desired. | gwenzek wrote: | Thanks a lot. Coil looked like its own browser, and I | didn't want yo use another browser. I was using a similar | service in the past, but unsuscribed because most created | I wanted to send money weren't receiving it. | | Will look into this | sofixa wrote: | Yeah, it's not as obvious as it could be, i'm in the | process of writing an article on the subject and how | important i think it is combat ads and tracking in the | long term. | input_sh wrote: | Puma is a fork of Firefox that does other cool shit: it | supports Handshake for DNS, uses DDG by default, and | there are some mentions of IPFS that I don't know if it's | implemented or not. | | I have yet to play with it though, mostly because I do | the vast majority of my browsing on a desktop. | Mediterraneo10 wrote: | > If you don't, and don't want to be tracked for ads, how do | you propose things work? | | There are so many hobbies and interests where the rich, meaty | information people can benefit from is found on old-school | blogs and websites that their owners have maintained without | expecting to make much money at all, besides the occasional | click-through to an Amazon referral link. | | However, those blogs and websites have now become hard to | find because they have been pushed down in search results due | to Google's changed algorithms and ad-supported websites | heavy on SEO - sometimes those ad-supported websites are | literal copies of earlier advertising-free blogs where a | developing-world freelancer was paid to rewrite all the | content just enough to avoid a DMCA takedown. Also, the | advertising-supported world of mobile social-media apps has | made people today less likely to step outside of their walled | gardens and consider small third-party independent websites. | | So, to a degree, things would work _better_ in certain cases | if targeted-advertising-supported websites disappeared; their | decline would reveal a whole world of useful free content | that was there the whole time. | waisbrot wrote: | Wikipedia is a well-known example of a vast amount of | content that I can read without any tracking or targeted | ads. In fact, there's very little advertising at all -- a | few times a year they show me a banner asking for donations | to the site. | folkrav wrote: | SEO was a thing before tracking and widespread advertising, | though, and I can't see it disappear even if we somehow | manage to ban those widespread tracking practices. Remember | keyword stacking? | | Businesses providing paid services on the internet will | still want to get noticed before those free smaller | websites and will do whatever they can to appear first in | relevant search engines results regardless. The reasons to | get people on their sites would shift from showing them ads | to selling them a paid product, but reeling people in is | still going to be the objective. | | There are many great arguments against tracking, but IMHO, | SEO isn't one. | potta_coffee wrote: | Most content is essentially worthless. I'd happily see most | of it disappear. | reaperducer wrote: | _don 't want to be tracked for ads, how do you propose things | work?_ | | The way they've worked for the last 400 years. The ads are | tailored to the content, not the individual reader. | chipgap98 wrote: | I would much rather pay than be tracked. Unfortunately many | sites don't give me that choice. | sofixa wrote: | Indeed, because for many of them the only option is ads, | because almost nobody uses any alternatives ( the only one | i know of is Web Monetization). Until it's massively used, | few site owners will make the effort. | bozzcl wrote: | So you're saying it's not worth trying moving in that | direction, just because people don't use it now? | sofixa wrote: | Au contraire, i'm saying start using it now, and if | enough people do, website owners will see the point in | supporting it. | ttt0 wrote: | I think I would be fine with paying too, but by paying | you're giving up all of your personal information. Unless | websites will suddenly start accepting something like | Monero, I actually prefer to be tracked, as I can at least | block it. | spoonjim wrote: | This will never happen because the people who would pay the | most to avoid targeted ad tracking are the ones who are the | most valuable to advertisers (essentially, people able and | willing to spend money). So when you see Facebook making | $20 per user or whatever and think "I'd pay $20 to avoid | being tracked," it's actually Facebook making nothing from | a ton of users, a little from a bunch of them, and a huge | amount from their "whales," and the people willing to pay | to avoid being tracked are most likely in the "whales." | throwaway3699 wrote: | Simple answer: The sum of all online marketing dollars is | more than the sum of any amount of money people would pay | for online content. | | That alone means direct payment will never replace ads. | | Most people are not reading The Financial Times or | Bloomberg, they are reading rags like The Sun and Facebook | gossip. I would love for that content to go away, but | really, ad supported models work great for that | demographic. | izacus wrote: | Also both FT and Bloomberg are still filled up chalked | full of trackers despite asking for money. | coldpie wrote: | You're right, but there is a solution: make online | marketing worthless. Install an ad blocker. | throwaway3699 wrote: | I think you miss my point. Even if online advertising (as | well as marketing, but that's a different concept) was | completely worthless, the number of paid dollars would | not go up, and the "total GDP" of the internet would go | down. | | If that's a desired future we should be honest about it, | but it's a future without as many independent journalists | who can't afford a team to sell their content, for | example. | jpalomaki wrote: | What is already happening is that ads get embedded in the | content. | | Paid content, product placement, YouTubers pitching | Audible book related to video. | seanhunter wrote: | If a highway robber stops you and demands "your money or your | life" and you object, they can't justifiably say "well if you | don't pay me, how do you propose things work?" | | The responsibility isn't on the user to either consent to | tracking or to come up with an alternative business model | that allows people to monetize things. The responsibility for | monetizing things falls on the people who want to do the | monetizing. They have to figure out a business model that | works and that users consent to. | sofixa wrote: | And ads work, and the vast majority of people consent to | them. The problem is, they're not that good of a model | an_opabinia wrote: | > I don't want to be tracked. I never have wanted to be | tracked. | | Maybe just use Tor. | | > Stop spying on us, please. | | It was probably a mistake to equivocate the kind of data | gathering that ad-tech companies do with the kind that | oppressive governments do. | AlexandrB wrote: | Meanwhile, in the "Company Gives Oppressive Government Access | to User Data" thread: | | > Well _of course_ $company gives $oppressive_regime access | to data they collect on their users. They have to comply with | local laws! | prophesi wrote: | But it's totally cool if we develop and sell the same tech to | oppressive governments. | dleslie wrote: | Even services that I _pay for_ block the use of VPNs and Tor; | most of the common web services have begun using DroneBL or | similar. | reaperducer wrote: | _Maybe just use Tor._ | | Why should I have to jump through hoops and disguise myself? | Why can't Google et.al. just respect the basic human right to | privacy? | grishka wrote: | Any new feature that is added to the _user agent_ should serve | or empower said user -- not any other parties, including the | browser maker and the advertisers. That simple. | anoncake wrote: | And that's why an ad company should not be allowed to also | make browsers. | fartcannon wrote: | We can all stop using Chrome. | | That'd help. | grishka wrote: | This kind of strategy has never ever worked because the | majority of the world's population just accepts whatever | is thrown at them without questioning. | anoncake wrote: | Sure. So would divine intervention. Regulation is more | realistic. | contravariant wrote: | Some well designed regulation would be nice. But just on | the off chance we should probably also try frying tofu | and sending it to the mozilla foundation, because we | might need some divine intervention after all. | freebuju wrote: | Can you go a day without the Internet? How about two days? | | Sadly without this tracking, the engines of the ad economy come | to a stop. We have royally ducked up the ecosystem to the point | where there's no fixing it. Ever. Even laws such as GDRP won't | cut it, Facebook & co. are happy to flout the rules since | paying the fines is worth the cost of breaking the rules. | | In the case of Google ad money vs Content marketing economy, it | really is a case where the chicken came before the egg. | matkoniecz wrote: | > Can you go a day without the Internet? How about two days? | | Yes. | | > Sadly without this tracking, the engines of the ad economy | come to a stop. | | One more reason to eliminate tracking. | mixmastamyk wrote: | Yes. All I really need are Wikipedia, HN, and Python.org and | few other programming sites. I don't mind shelling out a few | dollars to support them either. | kibwen wrote: | This seems to imply that without ad revenue, the internet | would not exist. But plenty of sites existed and still exist | without the support of ad revenue. The price to host a static | site is lower than it's ever been (and for sites that provide | free hosting, the cost of providing that service is lower | than it's ever been). If something like YouTube couldn't | exist without ads, then so be it: let them move to a | subscription model. There is nothing that says that we must | be forced to tolerate ads in exchange for the internet, let | alone ads that intentionally obliterate the human right to | privacy. | freebuju wrote: | Large parts of what you know today as the Internet are ad- | funded as opposed to user/donation funded. Without this ad | revenue being available to the web, not so many websites | and applications would have been born. | | Youtube did not even think of charging premium so many | years after launching as a free service. | | Do you think they would have been that successfully were it | not for the user base aka free eye-balls? | | > There is nothing that says that we must be forced to | tolerate ads in exchange for the internet | | While true but this is the way the game and the field has | been setup. Same thing that explains why you see ads on | even on paid devices. Why be content with 5$, when you know | you can shake 6$ from a customer? | | I am for privacy. Believe me. But this battle is not | winnable when you make up 5% of the sober group and the | rest are happy and drunk in love with Clubhouse or whatever | new social media drug that is the rage. | dleslie wrote: | Vimeo was working the paid angle around the time that | Youtube launched, and it wasn't under water. Youtube was | successful because they _purposefully_ (and so, | criminally) refused to take down copyrighted content | because they were aiming to grow fast enough and large | enough to be purchased by Google. | | It's not just Youtube/Vimeo; for instance, Flickr was a | premium paid service around the time that Facebook | launched, and it wasn't under water, either. | | These "freemium" services were able to act as _hideously | unprofitable_ loss leaders for the large advertisement | firms, and so take down the non-advertisement-funded | competition. | | It was predatorial monopolistic practices that gave us | the current web. | freebuju wrote: | Okay. Allow me to rephrase it. Knowing what you know about | these products, can you live without Google, Youtube, Gmail | for a day? This is what I refer to above when I say 'the | Internet'. I reckon most people can't go a week. | matkoniecz wrote: | > can you live without Google, Youtube, Gmail for a day? | | Without bug problems. Migrating away from Gmail would | allow me to de it indefinitely. | freebuju wrote: | I'm also locked in Gmail, among a couple other useful not | so easily replaceable products from Google. | a1369209993 wrote: | > can you live without Google, Youtube, Gmail for a day? | | The only one of those I even interact with on purpose is | Youtube, only via youtube-dl, and only because _other_ | people refuse to use reasonable means of distributing | video content (eg bittorrent). | robin_reala wrote: | Absolutely? I know I'm atypical for an internet user, but | apart from YouTube I rarely use Google products, and | YouTube is a nice-to-have, not a necessity. | vvillena wrote: | Ads also existed before user tracking. Google and Facebook | both seem to conveniently forget this fact. | frashelaw wrote: | As long as it remains massively profitable to collect every ounce | of data from us, tech corporations are going to keep doing this. | | Even with some existing laws, the profits are enough that they | are willing to flagrantly violate these laws and simply pay | meager fines. | | It's also unlikely that we will ever get significant legislation | to protect us from this either, because all these tech profits | allow big tech to buy our government, because policy is heavily | swayed by corporations. | querez wrote: | > That framing is based on a false premise that we have to choose | between "old tracking" and "new tracking." It's not either-or. | Instead of re-inventing the tracking wheel, we should imagine a | better world without the myriad problems of targeted ads. | | This seems backwards to me: the alternative to "targeted ads" are | "untargeted ads", aka Spam. Who would rather have spam than | targeted ads. Sure, spam might be easier to ignore, but it's also | not effective from the company's perspective: showing the ad only | to people who might be willing to spend money seems like a good | thing to me. It's certainly economical. Which is why I feel like | targeted ads are not something we can get rid of. | pornel wrote: | This "it's either no privacy or you get spam" is another false | premise. Google has built their empire on ads based on search | keywords and topics of websites you visit. Personalized cross- | site tracking is a relatively new and small addition. | Hard_Space wrote: | > Who would rather have spam than targeted ads | | I would, because the targeting creeps me out entirely. | Instagram were so good at it that I deleted the app. In the old | days, you stuck luxury advertising in rich neighborhoods and | used demographics for broadcast and other media. That'll do. | querez wrote: | Why should that do when you can do better? Why stop there? | That would be like saying "post everything programming | related on r/programming, that'll do. Let's ignore that there | are more focused venues for my content". | | Don't get me wrong, I'm not keen on getting tracked, either. | But I can totally see that from a company's perspective, if | you can make sure that only people who are interested in your | product actually see the ad, that's better. You don't annoy | people who aren't interested (not everyone in a rich | neighborhood cares about a BMW ad, some already have a Tesla) | and you increase effectiveness. | MayeulC wrote: | I place targeted advertising in the "creepy spam" category. | It's still spam. | | If I was to receive an unwanted phone call from a travel agency | while I am browsing plane tickets on the net, that would be | creepy and annoying to me: I prefer to make thoughtful | decisions by myself, thank you. | | I realize not everyone thinks the same way. But in my opinion, | advertisement has a severe net negative impact on our society, | and would like to get rid of it altogether. | | I already pay for targeted advertisement that comes in the news | articles I read, no need to force-feed me. | | I've seen that fun video (in French [1]) where a person asks | various advertisers their opinion on the role of advertising in | the society, then asks them about an "electric knife" ad that | was then running. The cognitive dissonance that follows is | hilarious. | | [1] (1990, no subs): https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x869qr | beervirus wrote: | All modern adtech is a terrible idea. | | Let's go back to banner ads that are "targeted" based on what | type of website you're looking at, rather than based on vacuuming | up as much private info as possible about users. | jacinabox wrote: | It seems to me that as long as advertisers have ingenuity they | will find new privacy harming ways of tracking us -- it seems | like Goggle is moving earth to use their ingenuity instead to | make a tracking device that isn't 'too identifying,' and could | reasonably form the basis of a 'truce' between users and | advertisers -- maybe we should let them? | Shared404 wrote: | This is also the conclusion I came to. | | Ban advertising targeted by tracking, and you remove the | incentive to track in the first place. | phnofive wrote: | I agree, but mainly because I don't know how much more valuable | targeted ads based on past actions are than current | site/intent. | | Say, for example, an payday lender buys a banner on | example.com/r/povertyfinance - could that not be construed as | predatory in the same way as building a poverty FLoC based on | browsing history? | sodality2 wrote: | Yeah, revenue for that is pennies to the dollar compared to | tracking. I am _not_ defending it but it is not a simple switch | to stop being evil and everything is fine. Hundreds of | thousands of services would shut down that relied on ads to | function. Which, again, they are relying on a predatory | business model, but still. | kibwen wrote: | _> Hundreds of thousands of services would shut down that | relied on ads to function. Which, again, they are relying on | a predatory business model, but still._ | | You appear to understand the situation, so I'm not sure why | you bring this up as a problem. If a business is utterly | incapable of operating without resorting to an unethical | business model, then the solution is to shut down the | business rather than abandon ethics. | sodality2 wrote: | Well, some people don't understand the scope of it. I for | the most part think it would be a good move, but it | certainly would throw off the web for a good while. | | >You appear to understand the situation, so I'm not sure | why you bring this up as a problem. | | It _is_ a problem, just not one that I think is more | important than the benefits it comes with. | | >If a business is utterly incapable of operating without | resorting to an unethical business model, then the solution | is to shut down the business rather than abandon ethics. | | I agree, but weigh the impact of other industries that rely | on that business as well. It would be a very unpopular | move, and given the lobbying in the US, it's unlikely to | pass here. And if it passes in the EU that might have other | negative impacts in partitioning the web even more. It's a | balancing act, and the solution is not as clear cut as "ban | tracking in advertising". Knowing lawmakers, do you think | this would differentiate between a paid service keeping a | user logged in and, say, google ads? I bet the paid service | would have an option in the subscription menu to upgrade, | is that tracking in advertising? Probably not to 99% of | sane people, but can lawmakers (or anyone for that matter) | express what they want out of such a law in a concise | enough manner to not be misconstrued in a major way? | rileymat2 wrote: | Is the revenue for that pennies on the dollar because | tracking exists, or is that what it is worth? | | I have no expertise in this, but I don't see why anyone would | pay for banner ads for more than pennies on the dollar if | tracking is an option. | | Wouldn't removing tracking change the economics? | marcosdumay wrote: | On practice, everybody was announcing at Google when it | used the site's content to decide what to show, and kept | announcing at them once they changed into targeting the | user instead. The change went mostly unnoticed. | | On the other hand, it can be that people detected the | change on their results metrics, and decided to increase | their spending because of the change. I really don't know | how to differentiate this scenario from a normal increase | on internet advertising that should naturally happen at the | earlier days of a fast growing web. I don't think even | Google (that has all the numbers) can tell them apart | either. | Shared404 wrote: | This is a good point. | | Also, this specific situation seems like a good candidate | for regulation, which removes the need for businesses to be | ethical of their own accord. | msg wrote: | I'm intrigued by the idea that users will be able to solve this | problem on the client side. Perhaps not on the underlying data | directly, but running an adversarial browser agent clicking its | way purposefully through the internet, in a tab you never look | at. | bentona wrote: | Interesting take from another market leader: | https://www.thetradedesk.com/us/knowledge-center/googles-mov... | kall wrote: | If this actually goes anywhere, I'm kind of excited about it from | the perspective of a product developer. | | Being able to do content recommendation for fresh visitors | without any tracking effort of your own would be pretty cool. It | will probably come with a dialog, so users will likely opt out | often for ads or on page load, but not if they just clicked "show | me movie recommendations" in your app. | unabridged wrote: | 99.9% of the interactions with the internet should be read-only | and could be delivered via something like IPFS. Make browsers | read-only by default and closely monitor when information is sent | out. | max-ibel wrote: | I find it ironic that Google's 'sign in with Google' and oAuth | methods only work if you allow third party cookies. | | At least, I have not figured out how to use it without enabling | 3rd party cookies. | brofallon wrote: | I'm wondering how hard it would be to reverse-engineer the FLoC | algorithm that assigns ids based on browsing history.. could one | just have a bunch of headless browsers randomly visit sites, and | compute the FLoC ids periodically to see what types of sites end | up producing which ids? This seems important since being assigned | a group ID that includes a bunch of people might not be so bad, | but (as the article suggests) if its well known which web sites | are included in the group, that's a more disturbing story | DreadY2K wrote: | If you run an advertising company, you could probably just pay | people a small amount of money to get their browsing history | and their FLoC id, and enough people would take you up on that | offer that you'd get that data (and maybe also demographics), | without having to do any work to reverse-engineer. | ttt0 wrote: | Will I be able to opt out from this? | darren_ wrote: | Yes: https://github.com/WICG/floc | | > "Whether the browser sends a real FLoC or a random one is | user controllable." | | FLoC stuff is client side. You can send nil FLoC IDs. You can | randomize them on every request. You can swap them with your | friends. Whatever. | | Vanilla Chrome might not let you (my money would be on an off- | switch but not anything fun) but that's hardly going to be a | blocker. | | (googler but works on something completely unrelated) | izacus wrote: | I'd assume that you can use a browser that doesn't send this | data? | kibwen wrote: | Until Google sites start deliberately breaking if you don't | send this data (or your browser is known to implement any | other feature intended to circumvent it), thereby destroying | the market share of any browser that dares to do so. | oytis wrote: | You can send bogus data in this case. | kibwen wrote: | I mention this. If Firefox were to come out and say | "we're going to start spoofing this data", Google servers | would start rejecting Firefox users within the week. No | major browser would dare do it, not even Safari and Edge, | because plenty of people are forced to use Google | services for work. At best, you would have a small number | of people using minor browsers and passing around patches | for major browsers to spoof the data discreetly. | izacus wrote: | I'm pretty sure Google would never dare block Safari and | start a direct war against Apple - they're even powerless | to resist current privacy changes on Safari. Apple has | monopoly on browsers on the most popular modern mobile | platform and I don't think Google can fight that. | jackson1442 wrote: | Edge is chromium so you're SOL anyways haha. I don't see | why uBlock Origin or another addon couldn't do this for | you though. | tpxl wrote: | Firefox blocks (blocked?) [0] google analytics in | incognito mode in firefox and google still pays them | buckets of money. It's not the same as doing it in normal | mode, but it is in that direction. | | [0] | https://twitter.com/__jakub_g/status/1365400306767581185 | ttt0 wrote: | Too bad that almost all of them are Chromium based now. | | I wonder if websites are going to block you out if you don't | have this enabled. Like they do with adblockers. | esperent wrote: | I guess we'll find out in a few weeks when testing starts. My | guess is that it'll be hidden deep in about:config somewhere. | 0xy wrote: | Given Google's other tracking practices (X-Client-Data and | leaky modern APIs like AudioContext), very unlikely. | | X-Client-Data cannot be disabled (it's hard-coded) and ships | telemetry to DoubleClick without disclosure. | | Google Chrome is the DoubleClick browser. Why else would | DoubleClick be hardcoded into the source as a place to send | telemetry? | tarkin2 wrote: | I failed to see how flocks (cohorts) change the dangers of | tracking or targeting. | | Cambridge Analytica didn't want to target a person. They wanted | to track people. Flocks of people. | fshbbdssbbgdd wrote: | I think the average person that cares about tracking worries | about the privacy implications if someone can look at their | individual actions/conversations, but not so much about being | marketed to as part of a group. | | The actions of Cambridge Analytica-type groups are an important | issue, but I don't think FLoC is trying to solve that. | m0llusk wrote: | Saying please do not seems like a weak strategy for containing | this. Financial pressure to target advertising is huge. There | will have to be ways of defeating or at least detecting this. | jszymborski wrote: | The cookie dialogue was dumb, but a FLoC dialogue that only | triggered on browsers that implemented it would be an actual | deterrent that made a difference for privacy. | data_spy wrote: | If it's terrible, look at the other suggested solutions. Some are | ultra terrible and will slow down the web | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | I think they're going to need to state their case in a way that | allows Google to still make money and be competitive in the | market place. It's not a simple matter of doing it and not doing | it. It's a matter of doing it, and making more money or not doing | it and making less. Google seems willing to move in the direction | of privacy, but it's not going to do so in a way that sabotages | the bottom line. It's unrealistic to expect any entity to | voluntarily sacrifice its own values for the values of another. | tehlike wrote: | Google has started ramping up their subscription products - | googleone in particular. | faichai wrote: | This is the transition that needs to happen. People just need | to get used to the idea of paying for software. Software | providers can then focus on making their products better | rather than finding streams to tangentially monetise their | offerings by invading user's privacy. | sofixa wrote: | Nobody will pay for every small blog, recipe/repair | tutorial/gardening tips website/YouTube channel. How much | value do they bring to you ? How much would you pay for | them? How would you know they're worth it without using | them first, and why would they allow you to use them for | free, when most users would be one-shot? | | Please support Web Monetization. | freeone3000 wrote: | I remember back when people put stuff on the internet for | free because it was fun and they enjoyed sharing. I | suppose the need for compensation has truly destroyed | every good thing. | arpa wrote: | Exactly. Old web was the bees knees. | izacus wrote: | There was also significantly less stuff because hosting | and hardware cost money. | kibwen wrote: | Even with significantly less stuff there was more stuff | than you could ever consume. In addition, the cost and | barriers to hosting static content have fallen quite a | bit since then, and the percentage of the human | population that has access to the internet (and can thus | participate in creation) has risen dramatically. An ad- | free internet would not be starved for content. | faichai wrote: | With OnlyFans, Patreon and Twitters super follow we're | slowly finding ways to make the consumer/creator | interaction more direct. It's only a matter of time | before something close to microtransactions pops out of | these. | | It's interesting that influencer promotion is already | out-of-band from general internet advertising. They are | paid directly to promote products to people who have | proactively followed/engaged with the influencer already. | fitblipper wrote: | If their intent is to convince Google, then I agree. If the | intent is to convince the public and policy makers, I don't | think they need to re-frame it. I am okay letting a company | (even a complete industry) fail if society has decided that the | industry or business practices are parasitic. | | Privacy is a freedom which has many parasites (state and | private entity driven) attacking it and I welcome changes to | perception, regulation, and law which places safeguards around | it. | izacus wrote: | And do you consider a complete ban of 100B+ advertising | industry and complete ban of tracking (happily used by | governments) a likely outcome? | | Even the mighty Apple still tracks analytics data and | separates that into a separate switch from the ones limiting | non-Apple tracking. | fitblipper wrote: | Not how opinions and politics stand now, but that is part | of the reason why articles like this are important. There | is quite a distance to travel between writing an article | criticizing tracking + the technology that enables it and | arriving at legislation. | izacus wrote: | I might be traitor to the cause, but I feel like giving | the industry an "out" might be easier to achieve and | significantly faster to implement - e.g. instead of | complete ban on targeted advertising, standardize on a | clientside API that can send a list of topics/themes that | are interesting to the person. In a way that's not owned | by a single corporation. | | This way I feel there will be less legislative and | lobbying pushback while still achieving major privacy | wins. | SahAssar wrote: | This is not about banning ads or analytics. | dvfjsdhgfv wrote: | > I think they're going to need to state their case in a way | that allows Google to still make money and be competitive in | the market place. | | I'm sorry but Google has no any competition. If you don't want | to limit oneself to, say, Facebook users, you pretty much have | to buy Google's ad services. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-03-04 23:00 UTC)