Most active commenters
  • sofixa(3)

←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: 1.206s | source | bottom
Show context
dleslie ◴[04 Mar 21 16:49 UTC] No.26344736[source]▶
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.

replies(10): >>26345317 #>>26345398 #>>26345438 #>>26345507 #>>26345714 #>>26346976 #>>26347529 #>>26347549 #>>26349806 #>>26350238 #
sofixa ◴[04 Mar 21 17:39 UTC] No.26345398[source]▶
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?
replies(7): >>26345418 #>>26345534 #>>26345567 #>>26345584 #>>26346090 #>>26346865 #>>26348773 #
1. chipgap98 ◴[04 Mar 21 17:41 UTC] No.26345418[source]▶
I would much rather pay than be tracked. Unfortunately many sites don't give me that choice.
replies(4): >>26345482 #>>26345574 #>>26345674 #>>26348623 #
2. sofixa ◴[04 Mar 21 17:47 UTC] No.26345482[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>26345560 #
3. bozzcl ◴[04 Mar 21 17:51 UTC] No.26345560[source]▶
So you're saying it's not worth trying moving in that direction, just because people don't use it now?
replies(1): >>26345631 #
4. spoonjim ◴[04 Mar 21 17:52 UTC] No.26345574[source]▶
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.”
replies(1): >>26350759 #
5. sofixa ◴[04 Mar 21 17:55 UTC] No.26345631{3}[source]▶
Au contraire, i'm saying start using it now, and if enough people do, website owners will see the point in supporting it.
6. throwaway3699 ◴[04 Mar 21 17:58 UTC] No.26345674[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>26345840 #>>26346372 #
7. izacus ◴[04 Mar 21 18:07 UTC] No.26345840[source]▶
Also both FT and Bloomberg are still filled up chalked full of trackers despite asking for money.
8. coldpie ◴[04 Mar 21 18:43 UTC] No.26346372[source]▶
You're right, but there is a solution: make online marketing worthless. Install an ad blocker.
replies(2): >>26347559 #>>26348148 #
9. throwaway3699 ◴[04 Mar 21 20:10 UTC] No.26347559{3}[source]▶
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.

10. jpalomaki ◴[04 Mar 21 20:54 UTC] No.26348148{3}[source]▶
What is already happening is that ads get embedded in the content.

Paid content, product placement, YouTubers pitching Audible book related to video.

11. ttt0 ◴[04 Mar 21 21:28 UTC] No.26348623[source]▶
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.
12. minsc__and__boo ◴[05 Mar 21 00:39 UTC] No.26350759[source]▶
I would say with some subscription services you see the inverse of this - i.e. streaming media. IIRC youtube creators make more per view with subscribers than they do with ads, but I could be wrong.