Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Google’s FLoC Is a Terrible Idea

    (www.eff.org)
    604 points wyldfire | 12 comments | 04 Mar 21 15:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.337s | source | bottom
    1. beervirus ◴[04 Mar 21 17:30 UTC] No.26345266[source]▶
    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.

    replies(5): >>26345612 #>>26345953 #>>26346857 #>>26349531 #>>26353850 #
    2. Shared404 ◴[04 Mar 21 17:54 UTC] No.26345612[source]▶
    This is also the conclusion I came to.

    Ban advertising targeted by tracking, and you remove the incentive to track in the first place.

    3. sodality2 ◴[04 Mar 21 18:14 UTC] No.26345953[source]▶
    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.
    replies(2): >>26346337 #>>26346441 #
    4. kibwen ◴[04 Mar 21 18:40 UTC] No.26346337[source]▶
    > 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.

    replies(2): >>26346603 #>>26351394 #
    5. rileymat2 ◴[04 Mar 21 18:48 UTC] No.26346441[source]▶
    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?

    replies(2): >>26346486 #>>26346706 #
    6. Shared404 ◴[04 Mar 21 18:51 UTC] No.26346486{3}[source]▶
    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.

    7. sodality2 ◴[04 Mar 21 19:00 UTC] No.26346603{3}[source]▶
    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?

    8. marcosdumay ◴[04 Mar 21 19:08 UTC] No.26346706{3}[source]▶
    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.

    9. jacinabox ◴[04 Mar 21 19:19 UTC] No.26346857[source]▶
    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?
    10. phnofive ◴[04 Mar 21 22:42 UTC] No.26349531[source]▶
    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?

    11. xxpor ◴[05 Mar 21 01:46 UTC] No.26351394{3}[source]▶
    Why do you assume everyone shares your ethics?
    12. thekyle ◴[05 Mar 21 07:24 UTC] No.26353850[source]▶
    Ironically some of the most profitable ads on the web (those that appear on search results pages) are almost completely contextual. So clearly targeting is not always necessary.