14 ms·
The Vivaldi browser will not support Google’s FLoC
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- echelon 5y agoThe DOJ needs to strip Google's ability to run the world's most popular browser away from it. This is far more blatant than Microsoft antitrust with Internet Explorer. Google is literally shaping the entire internet into their ad funnel. Google cannot be allowed to run Chrome.
- kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 5y agoGoogle needs to be split up, plain and simple. They are the most dangerous company in America
- dubcanada 5y agoThen Microsoft would just take over? You can't just point fingers at a specific company and say, yes that giant monopoly out of the other 50 monopolies is the bad one. The others are perfectly fine.
- kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 5y agoMicrosoft doesn't own 95% of the ad market, pretty much the entire search market, the browser market (and thus web standards pretty much), and also email, storage, etc. Google owns the internet. But hey, you are right. Split MS up as well. All of these companies have gotten too damn big.
- heavyset_go 5y agoThe solution to this is to hold them all accountable for anti-competitive behavior, and not to ignore anti-competitive behavior of one company just because another got away with it at one time.
- bilal4hmed 5y agoSplitting is not the solution to anything. Tell how splitting will solve anything ?? Let chinese companies or Apple or Microsoft buy up everything ???
- dont__panic 5y agoPresumably splitting up the company would also involve restrictions about other large tech companies gobbling up the resulting Google-chunks. Anti-trust law is a thing that the US could enforce if they so chose.
- f6v 5y agoWho is then?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- sanxiyn 5y agoA company that is independent from advertisers like Google and Facebook.
- nickysielicki 5y agoHow should they make money?
- sanxiyn 5y agoMozilla seems to manage.
- nickysielicki 5y agoMozilla is largely funded by Google. It's advertisement turtles all the way down.
- sanxiyn 5y agoGoogle is buying service (traffic) from Mozilla. It is not a donation.
- nickysielicki 5y agoThat doesn't change the fact that if Google stopped selling their ads, Mozilla would have to stop paying their developers.
- type0 5y ago
- Trias11 5y agoUS Government needs to actually represent interests of citizens more than interests on corps bribing them to allow abuse of people rights and privacy to continue. Implementing GDPR like regulation in US will solve a lot of issues.
- TameAntelope 5y agoSo if you create something interesting enough, the government shouldn't let you keep it? What kind of incentive is that to create interesting things?
- sanxiyn 5y agoPeople, sovereign, elected congress which passed antitrust law. You are not allowed to keep it because law passed by duly elected representatives of sovereign people says so. To fix incentive problems, convince people.
- TameAntelope 5y agoCan you help me connect the dots re: the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and Google Chrome's 64% global market share (47% in the US, the country being discussed)? I'm having a hard time seeing how those two things are related.
- eitland 5y agoNo. That's not what it means. Chrome was fine early on. The problem is when they have abused their power for 5 years and have all but killed all competition. Then they need to be published just like Microsoft was. There's nothing to be worried about: Google will survive, just like Microsoft did despite some serious punishment. If anything Microsoft learned and came out (somewhat) nicer and more agile.
- bserge 5y agoBig enough, yes. Once you're past a certain point, it becomes a matter of social concern to limit your control over it.
- creata 5y agoYou seem to insinuate that such rules would disincentivize the creation of interesting things, but I cannot imagine someone deciding not to create something simply because there is an unfathomably high ceiling on how successful it can be.
- eitland 5y agoActually if someone trustworthy could take care of developing the browser engine everyone else could develop the browsers around it. Not sure if it would be a good idea, but absolutely an interesting one. My biggest issue with the idea is how we can ensure that a single browser engine isn't manipulated into a tool for power hugry politicians and the increasingly problematic media industry.
- sanxiyn 5y agoWebKit was that engine, shared by Chrome and Safari. In retrospect WebKit age was the golden age of web browsers.
- Santosh83 5y ago> My biggest issue with the idea is how we can ensure that a single browser engine isn't manipulated into a tool for power hugry politicians and the increasingly problematic media industry. With a single engine diversity is already dead. But one can argue you can still build shallow or deep skins on top, but the problem of default bundling with devices is harder to solve. That's really where Chrome got the clinching edge over Firefox.
- paxys 5y ago> The FLoC component in Chrome needs to call Google’s servers to check if it can function since Google is only enabling it in parts of the world that are not covered by Europe’s GDPR This is all you should need to know about it.
- domano 5y agoMan GDPR is such a pain to implement and UX-wise, but it seems to actually have improved personal data protection.
- Etheryte 5y agoI don't see what you mean. It's very easy to be GDPR compliant, just don't track your users. In fact, it's more work to be non-compliant than to be compliant.
- sanxiyn 5y agoThat depends on what you are doing. If you are doing ecommerce, you need shipping address. GDPR does add work in this case.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoA little extra work in order to kill a lot of adtech is arguably a good thing.
- laurowyn 5y agoIs not using the shipping address for any other reason than shipping an order really that much more effort? Sure, protecting that information is more effort, but you should be doing that already, right? not just from a GDPR perspective but a business perspective too - if a competitor can get a list of all your clients and send them brochures with 10% discount on your prices, you'll close down pretty quick.
- 5y ago
- jereees 5y agoI’m sure there has to be a better way to introduce the audience to FLoC. I’m over five paragraphs in and the article hasn’t properly articulated what is FLoC and _why_ it is bad. Just that it is bad.
- tobyjsullivan 5y agoI wonder if that's because there's no short way to describe FLoC in a way that makes it sound bad for users. They'd need one paragraph to introduce FLoC, then another three making nuanced arguments about how it's actually worse than the status quo, and only then could they get to the core post about not supporting it. Better to avoid that fire and just let the reader infer FLoC is bad, whatever it is.
- dleslie 5y agoFLoC is a granular identifier that groups users into cohorts of a few dozen thousand based upon their recent browsing history, allowing advertisers to uniquely identify users with only a few additional bits of information _and_ more easily collaborate to identify a user's browsing history. That wasn't hard.
- crazypython 5y agoI just don't like how FLoC was implemented. No opt-in or opt-out consent. Written completely by Google employees. Not approved by Privacy Interest Group, Web Technical Architecture Group, or WICG. No control over which cohort you are in, despite being able to add this feature. If it was complemented with a Privacy Budget API– each privacy-losing API call costs budget and there is a limit– to eliminate other factors for fingerprinting and IDing that you can combine with FLoC to unique track people– thus giving advertisers complete browsing history– then I'd reconsider. Another thing is webmasters can opt-out of FLoC through a header. But many webmasters don't control headers... And on top of the practical consequences of its implementation.... not good.
- izacus 5y ago
- neogodless 5y agoThe article links to FLoC[0] but the site gives me a 404. I used Google, a popular web search engine, to discover what FLoC stands for[1]. > Federated Learning of Cohorts > a new way to make your browser do the profiling that third-party trackers used to do themselves: in this case, boiling down your recent browsing activity into a behavioral label, and then sharing it with websites and advertisers [0] https://blog.google/products/ad https://blog.google/products/ad [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-idea https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-...
- Natfan 5y agoDon't take this the wrong way, but did you really need to explain what Google (Search) is?
- neogodless 5y agoI can't answer for anyone else, but I suspect they already knew. It was a bit tongue-in-cheek, putting a spin on what Google really is (a monopolistic internet advertising empire, profiting off detailed information about as many internet users as possible.)
- robertlagrant 5y agoThey're just making the point that it's not hard to Google for things, so someone must need Google defining to need their advice.
- Chlorus 5y ago> Such adverts may be seen as a way to make money but can be used to influence user behaviour and control people in large numbers FLoC & ad-tracking sucks but can we dial back the hysteria?
- nimih 5y agoIsn't efficient advertising, the stated goal of FLoC, precisely the practice of influencing and controlling behavior on a large scale?
- tantalor 5y agoEfficient advertising is the goal of markets. Are we trying to dismantle basic economics here?
- 1_person 5y agoPrice discovery is the goal of markets. The difference between efficient price discovery and advertising is roughly equivalent to the difference between efficient sexual reproduction and rape.
- sanxiyn 5y agoAdvertising is a kind of persuasive technology. I use "persuasive technology" as a neutral term to include both its weak form (advertising) and its strong form (mind control).
- heavyset_go 5y agoAt least where my relatives a few generations back came from, the colloquial word for "advertising" was just "propaganda".
- oh_sigh 5y agoDoesn't Vivaldi allow 3rd party cookies by default? Because if they do it seems a bit hypocritical to dislike a potential for abuse of FLoC when the ability to abuse 3rd party cookies is far simpler and more direct.
- noisem4ker 5y agoDisabling third party cookies apparently still has the potential to break certain websites, in particular those having to do with external authentication providers and authorization flows.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago"Please switch to a browser that supports FLoC to view this page." [Links to Chrome, etc.] "This website requires a browser that supports FLoC. Please install one of the folllowing compatible browsers: " [Links for Chrome, etc.] "We've detected you are using a browser that does not support FLoC. Please update your browser to use this website." [Links to Chrome, etc.] "Your browser is outdated! Please upgrade." [Links to Chrome, etc.] "Browsehappy" [Links to Chrome, etc.] As someone who routinely uses a browser that does not support Javascript, I see "warnings" like this once in a while. There are so many. Apologies if I remember the wordings incorrectly. Of course, 99% of the time the lack of a Javascript engine has zero effect on the ability to retrieve the information I need from the site. And I still get the info in the 1% cases anyway, if I really want it. With FLoC, will web developers be able to make claims that a site "will not work" without FLoC. How will they get users to use Chrome or other browsers that enable FLoC by default.
- mixedCase 5y agoIs FLoC built in a way where you couldn't just feed websites fake data?
- Ajedi32 5y agoYou definitely could. Though apparently in incognito mode it's recommended that browsers just throw an exception rather than provide fake data: https://github.com/WICG/floc/blob/dcd4c042fa6a81b048e04a78b184ea4203a75219/security-and-privacy-self-review.md#14-how-do-the-features-in-this-specification-work-in-the-context-of-a-browsers-private-browsing-or-incognito-mode https://github.com/WICG/floc/blob/dcd4c042fa6a81b048e04a78b1...
- MiddleEndian 5y agoOf course the FLoC team would want browsers to throw an exception, since that wouldn't damage the perceived legitimacy of FLoC. But as a user I'd rather feed them false data if possible.
- EMM_386 5y agoI don't see how the entire FLoC concept can succeed. There is zero incentive for Chromium forks, let alone any other browser vendor, to implement/leave-in this technology. For other browser vendors, it is zero-effort to not support it. For Chromium forks, implementing it is zero effort but also comes with the same negative gain it would have for other vendors (that end-users are blind to). Unless you consider "more relevant advertisements" a win for users. Although Chrome/Edgium have enough market share to make advertisers happy with this change, I see this entire concept as something that could further erode that given enough negative publicity. Which is fine by me.
- KoftaBob 5y agoI can see advertising networks forming some sort of revenue split agreement with browsers so that they include FLoC.
- toyg 5y ago> I don't see how the entire FLoC concept can succeed. It probably doesn't need to. What is important is that Google can show authorities that they tried to track less, honest guv! It's the market that won't let us!
- noisem4ker 5y agoIf third party cookies (what FLoC is meant to replace) are indeed going away, Google will be in a tough spot.
- luke2m 5y ago>There is zero incentive for Chromium forks, let alone any other browser vendor, to implement/leave-in this technology. Chrome has a 60-70% market share on its own. Most people don’t even know the difference between “the internet” “the www” and “chrome” So, there is zero incentive for the 30% of non-chrome browsers, but most of the people who don’t use adblockers anyway will be sucked into this.
- type0 5y ago
- dang 5y agoRecent related threads: Brave disables Chromium FLoC features - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26765084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26765084 - April 2021 (335 comments) Am I FLoCed? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26755313 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26755313 - April 2021 (33 comments) Google’s FLoC Is a Terrible Idea - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26344013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26344013 - March 2021 (348 comments) I know there have been others - if anyone finds them, I'll add to the above list.
- aboringusername 5y agoA bit off topic but I'd love to see a sort of ML/AI feature where "related discussions" can be added automatically for added context, I appreciate you do this manually and I find it very useful to get more of an idea of the relevance/importance of a topic! (Maybe even a "HN search found 3 possibly related threads")
- throwaway3699 5y agoWhy would that need ML? PageRank has worked for ages for this problem.
- teraflop 5y agoI'm not sure what you think PageRank is, but it doesn't produce links between documents as output; it requires them as input.
- sweetdreamerit 5y agoI would consider PageRank as a quite successful example of machine learning. Am I wrong?
- warlog 5y agoIt started out that way, anyway.
- 5y ago
- AlexandrB 5y agoDoes FLoC include anti-tamper features or could one of Chrome's competitors "support" FLoC by populating the FLoC user profile with fabricated user data?
- tarruda 5y agoThat's exactly the same thing I asked myself after skimming through the github README.
- yoavm 5y agoThere's no need to tamper with anything, the specs already mention this: > Whether the browser sends a real FLoC or a random one is user controllable https://github.com/WICG/floc https://github.com/WICG/floc
- zimbatm 5y agoA better strategy would be to pretend to be in favor of FLoC until 3rd-party cookies are all eliminated. Since the FLoC ID is generated on the client side, it then becomes super easy to return fake ones to the website. :-D
- pkaye 5y agoYou can already block third party cookies in Chrome (and probably other browsers.)
- zamadatix 5y agoThe problem with blanket disabling third party cookies as an individual user is some sites use them for non-tracking/advertising reasons and subsequently you find yourself wondering "why is this page not loading right" at inconvenient times like ordering food during a meeting only to realize it was trying to use 3rd party cookies to complete the ordering process.
- anticristi 5y ago> The FLoC component in Chrome needs to call Google’s servers to check if it can function since Google is only enabling it in parts of the world that are not covered by Europe’s GDPR. Well then, why do we keep looking for technical solutions to non-technical problems. Please make the GDPR part of US law and we can move on. :)
- gramakri 5y agoIt took me w while to find out what FLoC is. It stands for "Federated Learning of Cohorts". Both this post and the one from brave never expands this abbreviation.
- OnlyRepliesToBS 5y agoIE6 was just a practice run
- rufugee 5y agoAnyone using Vivaldi full-time? As a Firefox user, I find I have to install a number of third-party extensions to get some basic functionality that Vivaldi has out of the box (ad-blocking, note taking). Anyone made the switch, and, if so, can you share your experience?
- approxim8ion 5y agoVivaldi is very feature-rich and smooth, but I cannot in good conscience use a proprietary browser as long as good open-source alternatives exist. Also, I'm just used to my custom firefox setup, I guess. I find it worth the initial time outlay to set it up, and of course there is the option of just carrying over your profiles to the new device.
- thedanbob 5y agoI've been using Vivaldi full-time for a few months and I find it very pleasant. It took me a while to get used to the sidebar but now I appreciate having it. Ditto with how it reopens your last session's tabs by default.
- cturtle 5y agoI jump between Vivaldi and Firefox, and I love both browsers. Currently I use Vivaldi more than Firefox. Here's what I like in both: Firefox: - Multi-account Containers extension is amazing. I only use it for a handful of accounts, but it is very simple to use. This is probably the feature I miss most in Vivaldi. - The interface integrates better with my DE (Cinnamon), and overall feels less cluttered. Vivaldi has some kind of bar on each edge of the window. Toggle UI (Ctrl+F11) helps to hide this, but Vivaldi does take more space away from the webpage. - I use uBlock Origin for adblock which seems to block more than Vivaldi by default. Vivaldi's built-in blocker is really great though, and I haven't felt the need to install an extension for adblock in Vivaldi. Vivaldi: - I love the recent addition of a second tab bar[0], though I was skeptical at first. I can quickly stack tabs by host to declutter, and then see all the tabs on a second row with full details when I select the stack. - The experimental builtin RSS[1] and Email panels are wonderful. Still some rough edges, but it is nice to not rely on another tool or service for RSS, and it is my favorite RSS reader I have used so far because it is simple and stays out of my way. - Many more tab management features. Saving tabs as a session, tiling, stacking, periodic reload, etc. Not all features I use daily, but handy when I need it. Overall, I've settled on using both browsers now. Each has strengths and weaknesses and I will use whichever helps me best in the moment. I'd say give it a try, and don't think about it as a switch, rather as a new tool. [0]: https://help.vivaldi.com/desktop/tabs/tab-stacks/ https://help.vivaldi.com/desktop/tabs/tab-stacks/ [1]: https://help.vivaldi.com/mail/mail-feeds/feeds/ https://help.vivaldi.com/mail/mail-feeds/feeds/
- jefftk 5y agoVivaldi and Brave both have built-in ad blockers. FLoC is a feature specifically designed to support advertising. Regardless of the privacy qualities of FLoC, it would be kind of pointless in these browsers anyway? (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cpeterso 5y agoWhat I have not seen described is how how advertisers will select which FLoC cohort IDs to advertise to, i.e. which ID is for baseball fans or which is for luxury travelers. The cohorts are generated independently by clients, so Google and others must recreate their own directory of IDs based on their own site lists.
- kerng 5y agoInstead of fingerprinting out of millions of browser users a company now just has to have a rather small set (Floc) + old school finger printing to 100% uniquely identify a user. I wonder how this feature even passed an internal Google privacy sniff test...
- gfxgirl 5y agoWhat is the stealman argument for FLoC? I don't agree with the argument that "no tracking" is better than semi-anonymous tracking because I believe "no tracking" is effectively impossible. Only in some fantasy world are you going to get browsers to become the lowest-common-denominator place with no JavaScript. Not even Firefox nor Apple (privacy first) are pushing for that world. I think possible one argument is if FLoC is good enough it will slow the tracking arms race. I suppose that is also a fantasy though.
- vaylian 5y ago> I believe "no tracking" is effectively impossible The problem is cross-site tracking. You can't prevent a single site from tracking you on itself. But it should be possible to block third-party (tracker) content by default.
- alkonaut 5y agoIs FLoC an option that can be disabled in Chrome? If not, why not?
- dzonga 5y agoI like vivaldi, however I feel like the added UI features even though great and beneficial contribute to the browser crashing a lot. I like the vertical tabs feature so much, but having vivaldi crash on me has made me go to brave.
- varispeed 5y agoI still think that any kind of user tracking should be illegal. It is no different from stalking. You visit one site, maybe enter something in a search box about your health problem or similar. Visit next site and you have all sorts of ads trying to help with your problem. This is wrong.
- Black101 5y agoWith FLoC, can you find out what sites were visited? or the sites AND the users are semi-anonymous?
- Traster 5y agoI just cannot see how this is anything other than a naked attempt by Google to get itself broken up. There's literally no reason someone writing a web-browser should be building spyware for advertisers. It's like if Microsoft had decided to start building those scummy Internet Explorer Toolbars in the 2000s.
- 07121941 5y agoHey, thanks Vivaldi, I'm sure everyone will fucking listen to you! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_IWVB2B7AI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_IWVB2B7AI