Most active commenters
  • jefftk(3)

←back to thread

Google’s FLoC Is a Terrible Idea

(www.eff.org)
604 points wyldfire | 13 comments | 04 Mar 21 15:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.455s | source | bottom
Show context
mycologos ◴[04 Mar 21 23:35 UTC] No.26350071[source]▶
One of my pet meta-theories about Hacker News is that the frustration expressed over several apparently different stories really has a single source: Hacker News likes the internet of 10-20 years ago a lot more than the average person.

One place this shows up is a frequently-expressed sentiment that the internet is a less magical, less weird, and more corporate place than it was 10-20 years ago. Part of this may be because SEO has diluted the voices of individual creators. But part of it is also because way more average, everyday, tech-unsavvy people are on the internet now.

Another example is the periodic highlighting of somewhat garish HTML-based websites. I like these too! My own personal website falls in this category! But as far as I know, the generic internet user likes the generic slick-graphics-and-whitespace style, and so go the websites that want to attract them.

More relevant to the topic at hand, many comments in this thread argue that targeted ads are unnecessary for a functional internet, since the internet of 20 years ago seemed to work just fine without targeted ads. But, again, it's less clear to me that general internet users -- that is, mostly people who never experienced the internet of 20 years ago -- have the same preference.

It's funny, because I'm to a large extent on HN's side on this one. But my enthusiasm is tempered by my sneaking suspicion that the other side is a lot bigger, and my side is actually powered by more elitism and nostalgia than I thought.

replies(21): >>26350120 #>>26350181 #>>26350476 #>>26350669 #>>26350739 #>>26350880 #>>26350916 #>>26351088 #>>26351504 #>>26351687 #>>26351861 #>>26351976 #>>26351982 #>>26352045 #>>26352261 #>>26352709 #>>26352710 #>>26353682 #>>26355085 #>>26355515 #>>26366640 #
1. ErikVandeWater ◴[04 Mar 21 23:40 UTC] No.26350120[source]▶
I would say that the average HN user isn't so much opposed to targetted ads as they are opposed to organizations that are unaccountable to them storing their personal information in an insecure way. And Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. all provided information to the NSA so it could illegally spy on almost every American with access to the internet.
replies(3): >>26350183 #>>26351316 #>>26352578 #
2. vaidhy ◴[04 Mar 21 23:46 UTC] No.26350183[source]▶
This also seems to be a tech-elite/libertarian mindset and borders on paranoia. Does the average voter care enough to vote one way or other for it? I would suspect not.. they have bigger problems to deal with and they seem ok with government knowing something about them.
replies(1): >>26350229 #
3. __blockcipher__ ◴[04 Mar 21 23:51 UTC] No.26350229[source]▶
Being opposed to something that is literally proven to actually happen is "tech-elite/libertarian mindset and borders on paranoia"? I don't understand your point of view at all, frankly.

It's okay to say that you personally don't believe in a right to privacy or don't believe that it's an issue to vacuum up the data of own's own citizens, etc, but what I don't understand is saying that other people are paranoid elitists if they hold the view that they think it's wrong to spy on citizens. It seems incredibly uncharitable.

Furthermore your comment reads like you're addressing an argument the GP never made. What's the relevance of this section:

> Does the average voter care enough to vote one way or other for it? I would suspect not.. they have bigger problems to deal with and they seem ok with government knowing something about them.

The GP never insinuated that the average voter cares about such things (indeed by mentioning that the HN userbase does that implies that the general population does not otherwise it would not be worth mentioning)

4. jefftk ◴[05 Mar 21 01:37 UTC] No.26351316[source]▶
If that were the case, then wouldn't you expect the average HN user to like FLoC? Targeted ads, where the personal information is stored securely in your browser.

(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)

replies(3): >>26351577 #>>26353788 #>>26355971 #
5. pueblito ◴[05 Mar 21 02:05 UTC] No.26351577[source]▶
Why would I trust that what FLoC is presented as being is actually just that and only that? Everything google makes seems like bait and switch lies massaged by lawyerspeak to make it legal. Like anyone else who has burned me and my friends in the past, they have to show me they have nothing up their sleeve first
replies(2): >>26351900 #>>26352049 #
6. lupire ◴[05 Mar 21 02:46 UTC] No.26351900{3}[source]▶
What has Google done that they said they wouldn't?
replies(2): >>26352020 #>>26358899 #
7. thebetatester ◴[05 Mar 21 03:00 UTC] No.26352020{4}[source]▶
Not be evil? ;)
8. jefftk ◴[05 Mar 21 03:04 UTC] No.26352049{3}[source]▶
> they have to show me they have nothing up their sleeve first

https://github.com/WICG/floc describes something open source and running on the client. Will that be sufficient, or is there additional disclosure you'd like to see?

9. nuker ◴[05 Mar 21 04:09 UTC] No.26352578[source]▶
> they are opposed to organizations that are unaccountable to them storing their personal information in an insecure way.

.. unaccountable to them storing their personal information. Period.

10. rswail ◴[05 Mar 21 07:12 UTC] No.26353788[source]▶
Because having read the EFF article, it is clear that personal information is not secured to my browser. By definition, putting me into a category exposes my personal information, in a summarized form that is potentially reversible.

It enhances the ability to fingerprint me, effectively exposing my browsing history.

If Google offered it as an "opt in", giving me some reward for sharing my personal information that Google sells to advertisers, then that is a fair deal. In return for some form of sharing the revenue, Google gets to sell my information.

But that's not the model. It's still the "you're a product" model where Google not only gets to sell my search history, but now also continues to sell my browsing history.

I can see how it benefits Google and how it gives them/you something to sell to advertisers, but what's in it for me?

replies(1): >>26356152 #
11. lovemenot ◴[05 Mar 21 12:15 UTC] No.26355971[source]▶
In general I agree. Cannot speak for others here of course.

The devil is in the detail. So if FLoC and new third party tools to subvert FLoC became too mainstream, then I would expect Google to act in its own interest and provide value-added back-end services. Just as has happened with Android AOSP and Play Services.

Until then though, I feel FLoC being both client-side and open-source would be an improvement on the status quo

12. jefftk ◴[05 Mar 21 12:36 UTC] No.26356152{3}[source]▶
This isn't information that Google would sell to advertisers: the proposal is that it be available to all JavaScript in the browser: https://github.com/WICG/floc

What you get in return is that ad-supported sites you visit are better funded because they can show better-targeted advertising.

13. ErikVandeWater ◴[05 Mar 21 16:46 UTC] No.26358899{4}[source]▶
Is this a joke? Google says it follows the law but has been fined $10+ billion in the last decade for violating it.