←back to thread

Google’s FLoC Is a Terrible Idea

(www.eff.org)
604 points wyldfire | 3 comments | 04 Mar 21 15:59 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
evrydayhustling ◴[04 Mar 21 17:48 UTC] No.26345507[source]▶
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.

replies(6): >>26345563 #>>26346014 #>>26348043 #>>26348349 #>>26349630 #>>26349899 #
dleslie ◴[04 Mar 21 17:51 UTC] No.26345563[source]▶
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.

replies(4): >>26346426 #>>26348585 #>>26349273 #>>26349707 #
judge2020 ◴[04 Mar 21 18:47 UTC] No.26346426[source]▶
A lot of sites already break (sometimes in non obvious ways) with an ad blocker, so I don’t see how this changes anything.
replies(2): >>26346600 #>>26349312 #
1. dleslie ◴[04 Mar 21 19:00 UTC] No.26346600[source]▶
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.

replies(2): >>26349414 #>>26350641 #
2. Spivak ◴[04 Mar 21 22:32 UTC] No.26349414[source]▶
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.
3. ascar ◴[05 Mar 21 00:29 UTC] No.26350641[source]▶
> If most browsers aggressively blocked ads then more sites would test to see if blocking ads breaks the site.

I'm not sure that's a reasonable assumption.

Many sites actively break their own user experience and hide their content as best as possible for users with adblockers. It's also understandable, because these sites don't want users but adviews and adclicks. They would rather intensify their efforts to force the user to turn on adds than make sure the website works without generating revenue.

I also don't think we would see much more subscription or pay once models, because they are just not viable for many websites. These websites would simply cease to exist and we end up with less diverse available information on the internet.