5 ms·

Excluding a page is a manual process however, requiring to set the header mentioned in the blog post. So website owners have to explicitly opt-out of FLoC.

retor 6y ago
Yeah, but that is only necessary if the page contains ads or ads-related resources, right? That’s how I interpret the previous quote.
- dspillett 6y ago
  Yeah and the system will never accidentally see something not advert related as advert related and turn the option on. Things like that never happen. And when that does happen, Google is famously transparent in its actions and easy to contact to resolve such issues. (You may detect a little touch of sarcasm above!)
  - lupire 6y ago
    If you detected it yourself, you should rewrite it to make your writing less confusing.
- bigiain 6y ago
  What’s an “ads-related resource”??? Is it way to cynical to think that coming from the worlds largest advertising company that can’t mean anything except “monetizable web content”...
sanxiyn 6y ago
Web server software maintainers should enable the header by default. Bugs should be filed against those with the wrong default.
- wyager 6y ago
  Web server software should absolutely not add a bunch of garbage to work around some ad company's shenanigans.
  - ben174 6y ago
    They shouldn't have to, but there are several examples of where it's the software author who has take action in order to put a stop to it. Not an Apple fanboy, but Safari is a great example of software which has changed its default behavior to prevent creepy things from happening.
    - NicoJuicy 6y ago
      Safari is also a great example of a browser to keep the app store relevant ( outside of games) Different companies, different incentives
  - yarcob 6y ago
    Pretty much all network code has workarounds or default configurations that work around problems with specific clients. I guess this topic is more of a political issue rather than an obvious compatiblity issue, so it's not as clear cut. But adding special code to deal with buggy clients is something everyone has to do sooner or later.
  - zentiggr 6y ago
    If Google is going to shift to using almost unblockable tracking calculations, then servers are the next most logical place to push back against it. Anyone who runs a site and wants to opt in against a default block should have to take extra action to reduce their visitors privacy, and should be called out for their behavior. As others have noted, there are already plenty of workarounds in use for many reasons... this is a BETTER reason than most.

retor 6y ago

Yeah, but that is only necessary if the page contains ads or ads-related resources, right? That’s how I interpret the previous quote.

dspillett 6y ago
Yeah and the system will never accidentally see something not advert related as advert related and turn the option on. Things like that never happen. And when that does happen, Google is famously transparent in its actions and easy to contact to resolve such issues. (You may detect a little touch of sarcasm above!)
- lupire 6y ago
  If you detected it yourself, you should rewrite it to make your writing less confusing.
bigiain 6y ago
What’s an “ads-related resource”??? Is it way to cynical to think that coming from the worlds largest advertising company that can’t mean anything except “monetizable web content”...

sanxiyn 6y ago

Web server software maintainers should enable the header by default. Bugs should be filed against those with the wrong default.

wyager 6y ago
Web server software should absolutely not add a bunch of garbage to work around some ad company's shenanigans.
- ben174 6y ago
  They shouldn't have to, but there are several examples of where it's the software author who has take action in order to put a stop to it. Not an Apple fanboy, but Safari is a great example of software which has changed its default behavior to prevent creepy things from happening.
  - NicoJuicy 6y ago
    Safari is also a great example of a browser to keep the app store relevant ( outside of games) Different companies, different incentives
- yarcob 6y ago
  Pretty much all network code has workarounds or default configurations that work around problems with specific clients. I guess this topic is more of a political issue rather than an obvious compatiblity issue, so it's not as clear cut. But adding special code to deal with buggy clients is something everyone has to do sooner or later.
- zentiggr 6y ago
  If Google is going to shift to using almost unblockable tracking calculations, then servers are the next most logical place to push back against it. Anyone who runs a site and wants to opt in against a default block should have to take extra action to reduce their visitors privacy, and should be called out for their behavior. As others have noted, there are already plenty of workarounds in use for many reasons... this is a BETTER reason than most.