3 ms·

Google must have seen this coming. It was never going to be the privacy savior Google billed it as, so why push forward with the concept? We have to look deeper

Google must have seen this coming. It was never going to be the privacy savior Google billed it as, so why push forward with the concept? We have to look deeper to understand what value FLOC provides to Google. They can exclusively gather tracking info through the browser they control, and they can weaken competitor’s privacy arguments by claiming that they do not track individuals.

Vespasian 6y ago
Probably because they feel that the tide is turning against 3rd-party cookies and maybe even fear legislative action in some markets. The beauty is that Googles business works just fine with FLOC and their competitors don't. When third party trackers "abuse" the ids one "obvious" solution could be to only allow "trusted" advertisers to receive it. If, in a great stroke of fortune, the requirements to become trusted are basically "be Google" I wouldn't be surprised.
- 015a 6y ago
  The worst part is actually, it will never look like "just be Google", because that would be too obviously evil and be subject to decisive legislative action. Google's Widevine (streaming media DRM) is a great correlate to this. If you wanted to try and create a great, novel 4th web engine/browser; good luck. Many of the major streaming sites use Widevine. You can't build a browser to stream that content without asking for access to Widevine encryption. Google will not give it to you; they may, eventually, if you build up enough of a userbase, but what browser would be able to build up that userbase without access to streaming media? Its less about building a bulwark around Google's technology, a clear monopoly, and moreso a bulwark around the Boys Club of Established Big Tech. Then Google can go to Congress and say "we have competition, look, Facebook serves ads".
  - HDMI_Cable 6y ago
    Also we have to ask the question: does DRM like Widevine even work? One could just take a video recording of their Netflix stream using OBS or something similar, and Widevine can't even do anything to counter it.
    - mike_d 6y ago
      > does DRM like Widevine even work? Yes, you just don't understand what working is. Everyone realizes you can do screen recording, HDMI recording, or just invite a friend over to watch on your screen. What it does do is make the content owners comfortable enough that there is a reasonable level of protection as to allow their content to be streamed online.
      - ev1 6y ago
        For the third thing you mentioned: https://twitter.com/Sean8UrSon/status/1379156103557120001/photo/1 https://twitter.com/Sean8UrSon/status/1379156103557120001/ph...
    - ev1 6y ago
      Basic software level Widevine will generally not allow you to play high quality content (like probably 1080 or better): https://support.google.com/widevine/answer/6072714?hl=en https://support.google.com/widevine/answer/6072714?hl=en
tyingq 6y ago
They were similarly pushy about Manifest V3, AMP, etc. I suppose anything they can do that creates more of a gap between their tracking abilities and other people's is a really core way to boost revenue. Shareholders really want to hang onto the history of strong double-digit percentage YoY gains.
privacylawthrow 6y ago
>It was never going to be the privacy savior Google billed it as, so why push forward with the concept? Because these users are still anonymous to companies using Google services. Uniquely identifying users, and the liability for doing so, falls to intermediary services. I expect it will be the domain of data brokers like LiveRamp, Epsilon, and others. "Use Google and be compliant" is a good sales tool and good value for companies that use Google services. Companies that don't want to sell data to brokers will stick with Google.
- morelisp 6y ago
  The number of companies that want to sell to brokers is rapidly increasing though - basically all retail wants to, or spins off a BI division that wants to. They hired all those data scientists, gotta find something for them to do…
  - privacylawthrow 6y ago
    Data scientists would rather buy data to work with big data sets than sell their own data for money. It's the marketers and people with P&L obligations that usually want to sell.
foobiter 6y ago
it’s Google exercising more control over the advertising industry, pure and simple - they see cookies are dying and are looking for a way to circumvent it by leaning on their dominance in the browser market
indymike 6y ago
Many competitors were depending on third party cookies.

Vespasian 6y ago

Probably because they feel that the tide is turning against 3rd-party cookies and maybe even fear legislative action in some markets. The beauty is that Googles business works just fine with FLOC and their competitors don't. When third party trackers "abuse" the ids one "obvious" solution could be to only allow "trusted" advertisers to receive it. If, in a great stroke of fortune, the requirements to become trusted are basically "be Google" I wouldn't be surprised.

015a 6y ago
The worst part is actually, it will never look like "just be Google", because that would be too obviously evil and be subject to decisive legislative action. Google's Widevine (streaming media DRM) is a great correlate to this. If you wanted to try and create a great, novel 4th web engine/browser; good luck. Many of the major streaming sites use Widevine. You can't build a browser to stream that content without asking for access to Widevine encryption. Google will not give it to you; they may, eventually, if you build up enough of a userbase, but what browser would be able to build up that userbase without access to streaming media? Its less about building a bulwark around Google's technology, a clear monopoly, and moreso a bulwark around the Boys Club of Established Big Tech. Then Google can go to Congress and say "we have competition, look, Facebook serves ads".
- HDMI_Cable 6y ago
  Also we have to ask the question: does DRM like Widevine even work? One could just take a video recording of their Netflix stream using OBS or something similar, and Widevine can't even do anything to counter it.
  - mike_d 6y ago
    > does DRM like Widevine even work? Yes, you just don't understand what working is. Everyone realizes you can do screen recording, HDMI recording, or just invite a friend over to watch on your screen. What it does do is make the content owners comfortable enough that there is a reasonable level of protection as to allow their content to be streamed online.
    - ev1 6y ago
      For the third thing you mentioned: https://twitter.com/Sean8UrSon/status/1379156103557120001/photo/1 https://twitter.com/Sean8UrSon/status/1379156103557120001/ph...
  - ev1 6y ago
    Basic software level Widevine will generally not allow you to play high quality content (like probably 1080 or better): https://support.google.com/widevine/answer/6072714?hl=en https://support.google.com/widevine/answer/6072714?hl=en

tyingq 6y ago

They were similarly pushy about Manifest V3, AMP, etc. I suppose anything they can do that creates more of a gap between their tracking abilities and other people's is a really core way to boost revenue. Shareholders really want to hang onto the history of strong double-digit percentage YoY gains.

privacylawthrow 6y ago

>It was never going to be the privacy savior Google billed it as, so why push forward with the concept? Because these users are still anonymous to companies using Google services. Uniquely identifying users, and the liability for doing so, falls to intermediary services. I expect it will be the domain of data brokers like LiveRamp, Epsilon, and others. "Use Google and be compliant" is a good sales tool and good value for companies that use Google services. Companies that don't want to sell data to brokers will stick with Google.

morelisp 6y ago
The number of companies that want to sell to brokers is rapidly increasing though - basically all retail wants to, or spins off a BI division that wants to. They hired all those data scientists, gotta find something for them to do…
- privacylawthrow 6y ago
  Data scientists would rather buy data to work with big data sets than sell their own data for money. It's the marketers and people with P&L obligations that usually want to sell.

foobiter 6y ago

it’s Google exercising more control over the advertising industry, pure and simple - they see cookies are dying and are looking for a way to circumvent it by leaning on their dominance in the browser market

indymike 6y ago

Many competitors were depending on third party cookies.