Google’s FLoC Is a Terrible Idea

> 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.

> 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.

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

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.

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.

> 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. (1990, no subs)

Beside Séguéla who dares asserting that advertising makes people more intelligent and is a public service for democracy, the angry one is now congressman (for the right-wing party of course, 20 years of mandate and counting) :-)

> Why should that do when you can do better?

Because "better [for advertisers]" is a euphemism for "worse for advertisees".

> Why stop there?

Because it's deeply unethical.

If a stranger comes up to you and addresses you by name, you're probably going to be creeped out. It's human nature. Same thing here - you didn't start this relationship voluntarily or invest in it; why would you react positively to an unknown entity approaching you with prior knowledge about you?