8 ms·

FLoC Away from Chrome

347 points by bjt2n3904 6y ago

Chris2048 6y ago
I feel like the real battle is not in things like this, but bigger future stuff. TBH - I think the future of the web will be different, and will render the past stuff irrelevant, and so the main aim is that the "big players" aren't allowed to gatekeep, and block future development via legal means. Stuff like net-neutrality, and legality of reverse engineering protocols and APIs are key to this. The Ad-war is far from over, so long as people still own their own things - this is why I see the cloud, or at least the monopolisation cloud, and the monopolisation of certain hardware (chip fab etc) as at-least as important as software.
AegirLeet 6y ago
Don't use Chrome and don't use other browser based on Chromium either. As long as Google's engine has 85%+ market share, they can just unilaterally do whatever they want to the web. Use Firefox if you actually want to fix the web.
- miguelmota 6y ago
  Ditto. Firefox takes security and privacy more seriously as well. Google's business model is selling online advertising which by nature requires data collection and tracking. I've been using Firefox as main browser and for web development for years and never thought about going back to Chrome.
- fauigerzigerk 6y ago
  I'm not entirely sure whether it is more sustainable to maintain a separate rendering engine than to gradually build up Chromium expertise outside of Google. With FloC, we now have a test case where we will see whether or not other Chromium based browsers can make independent decisions that go against Google's interests.
  - zmmmmm 6y ago
    you can build all the expertise you want, it will not achieve much control or influence over what gets put into Chrome and therefore what power Google has to influence or just ignore web standards. The real power comes from voting with your feet and using a different browser altogether.
    - fauigerzigerk 6y ago
      Building Chromium expertise could enable Chromium alternatives such as Vivaldi, Edge or Brave to selectively remove or override features that only benefit Google. I'm wondering whether this is ultimately a more effective strategy if the goal is independence from Google's business model while offering a performant browser that works on all websites. Mozilla has to put tremendous resources into implementing browser features that are uncontroversial and unrelated to Google's business model. And those resources are paid for by Google. That said, there are certainly good arguments in favour of having more than one rendering engine. After all, privacy controversies are not the only reason why competition is healthy.
  - topnde 6y ago
    Apparently Vivaldi (based on Chromium) made it's decision (for the time being) https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-get-floced/ https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-ge...
  - Yizahi 6y ago
    We already know the answer. Did those so called browsers, but actually Chrome mods, made independent decisions about AMP? Something they can't just change easily. The answer is no. And the same answer will be when Google will make Floc permanent and not switchable in Chrome. No need to test anything again.
- xxs 6y ago
  I do use Firefox and have been since its used to named 'Netscape'... Everyone in my family uses Firefox on all their devices but that's just a microscopic fraction. Google used all the scummy practices, incl. youtube, gmail, docs and all advised to switch to faster/modern/etc. browser. Android straight out comes w/ chrome that's built-in and cannot be removed (save for rooting). With the amount of wealth and power (and interests), it's unrealistic to expect a change would happen on its right own. Firefox is effectively a slave of google ads money as well. Back in the days Microsoft was close to get split over IE. What google does is in no way less sinister, so unless there is an antitrust process involved, I don't quite see the hegemony of Chrome ending anytime soon (or ever).
- CodeGlitch 6y ago
  > Use Firefox if you actually want to fix the web. I think "the web" (search engines, youtube, social networks) are a lost cause. Too centralised, too much opportunity for tracking, privacy nightmare, security nightmare. The solution? RSS. How you read RSS content shouldn't be that important - let's stop focusing so much on rendering pages, and more on delivery.
jasonvorhe 6y ago
> Internet Explorer 6 is better at this point. Oh come on.
user-the-name 6y ago
What an absolutely insufferable site. Completely ruins any point it might have had by being belittling and smug.
charcircuit 6y ago
This website fails to argue why floc is bad for me. Does floc give me worse ads? Does floc slow down the browser? Does floc use up more memory?
- anaisbetts 6y ago
  People have framed in their minds that "FLoC == tracking, no FLoC == no tracking". But that is actually 0% true, FLoC is less tracking than what is currently happening today People think they are getting more tracked by this but in reality it is trying to make them be less tracked
  - DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
    less tracking is still tracking. If I install a system for my 70+ yro family members or give screens to small kids, I want the option of guaranteed no tracking. Saying use less tracking instead of full tracking is like saying eat this diet of excrement which contains less excrement.
    - charcircuit 6y ago
      Tracking isn't bad though. I don't see how a person age would make it any more good or bad to do either. Without tracking the internet wouldn't even work at a large scale. All it would take would be 1 malicious user and it would be impossible to know who it is since you aren't keeping that information around.
  - throwawayffffas 6y ago
    Floc is trying to make tracking exclusively googles domain. By eliminating the technologies available to other parties. They are straight up abusing their dominant market position, the "less tracking" bit is there so that when they are in front of a judge they can claim they did it all for the users and it's a net benefit to the users so they don't have to roll it back.
    - charcircuit 6y ago
bitlevel 6y ago
If you want to keep the Chrome backend, but don't want to be FLoC'd, then consider Vivaldi: https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-get-floced/ https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-ge...
pelorat 6y ago
Sitting here, with Chrome, signed into all Google services via the Chrome integration, zero of the privacy options disabled in my Google account. Ohhh, I feel so dirty now. Or not.
- mousetree 6y ago
  Pelorat, Foundation?
xaduha 6y ago
I can imagine a reaction at Google like 'They are up in arms against this?! But this is nothing compared to what we do already!'. This is their olive branch, in a way. Putting things in the open is better than not. This is not a problem than can be solved by technical means, in my opinion. America doesn't even have GDPR.
cl3misch 6y ago
> Google Chrome has become a slimy browser [...] I don't think you'll convince any non-technical users with such language.
- egor2820 6y ago
  It doesn't convince me, and I'm highly technical user, I just don't want to jump to an unknown browser every time someone thinks my browser tracks my history, anyone's history is so over exaggerated this time.
- dbbk 6y ago
  No one can even articulate in plain english why this is a bad thing for people or affects their lives in any tangible way.
dt3ft 6y ago
We lost the war, haven't we?
- nine_k 6y ago
  The war has not ended yet. I see no point in declaring defeat.
- bjt2n3904 6y ago
  > "I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. > "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." It looks bleak... but hey. Hobbits toppled the Eye of Sauron.
  - MayeulC 6y ago
    Somehow this reminds me a bit of the bible... Luke 22:42 > “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”
- ehnto 6y ago
  It depends on the scope I think. There's obviously nothing stopping anyone from running other browsers, blocking tracking as best they can, anonymizing as much as possible, or hell even starting their own networks to avoid it all together. The technology is still there, still open and free. But the net now contains the general populace, and as such significant power has been amassed by controlling it. I don't believe the internet as we know it is in the hands of the netizens anymore, and I have to doubt that the majority of the netizens would even care. Google and Amazon have both showed continued behavior showing that they'll eat, buy or smother anything that comes a little too close to them, why should we expect that it would be any different if we tried to kick their behaviors off the network?
- techrat 6y ago
  > Chromium is open source > Nearly every browser is based on open source code "We lost the war, haven't we?" What's stopping you, or anyone else, from forking code and making it privacy focused? Microsoft got complacent and IE lost to Mozilla. Mozilla got bloated, lazy and they lost their focus after several missteps, several of which alienated the fuck out of the FOSS community. (Forcing several distros to fork and rebrand to something like Iceweasel? Seriously? Way to dilute your own branding.) Chrome took over because it simply was the better browser. It brought a lot of new things to the table that made Firefox look stale in relatively short amount of time. Is it still the better browser? I don't think that's quite as clear cut these days... but unfortunately, browsers like "Brave" aren't doing anyone any favors with their misleading presentation, sketchy tactics and meme like spamming from users who don't look beyond bitelines. So when it comes down to it, every Chromium fork that currently exists still has a business, with business motives, behind it. The source is there. Does somebody want to make an effort to fork it and let it be the true privacy focused browser or are we just going to complain about losing a war that nobody's really fighting?
liquidise 6y ago
> Stop using Google Chrome, and install another browser As a thought experiment, i've wondered what would happen if webdevs started to add those ugly "This website does not support Chrome, please install [Firefox](...) for the best experience." Does Chrome have the branding to sustain it? Would the websites take the traffic hit? If trends continue as they have the last 5+ years, it may be a test worth running.
- eertami 6y ago
  >As a thought experiment, i've wondered what would happen if webdevs started to add those ugly "This website does not support Chrome, please install [Firefox](...) for the best experience." I use Chrome for exactly one reason: adding shortcuts to websites as an app. Firefox at one point had (very broken) support for this, but they've since removed it (on desktop, it's still possible on the mobile app). It is simply untrue that Firefox gives me the best experience. If you're going to block Chrome because of web privacy ideology, then just say that. Don't lie to your visitors. Telling me Chrome "isn't supported" is obvious hogwash. Instead you should tell me that you have blocked it, and why you have blocked it, and maybe then I would consider opening your page in another browser. Strong arming users with false pretenses is deplorable, no matter which side is doing it.
  - why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago
    Wait, you are using shortcuts instead of bookmarks or just keeping the tabs opened and that is the reason to use Chrome? That's one of the most unique reasons for keeping using certain browser I've even seen.
    - eertami 6y ago
      I don't think keeping app shortcuts for SPAs is niche at all. I've seen plenty of people do it. It is a much better user experience. With things like Gmail or WhatsApp Web I don't want them to be another browser tab, I want to be able to switch to it and control the windows with my window manager. I am never closing these windows, and trying to find them among open browser tabs in different browser windows is not fun. Browser tabs are a not a good replacement for desktop window management.
est31 6y ago
> Some website owners think the best strategy is to opt their websites out of FLoC by attaching a header. I've tried to look up which header that would be. The only thing I could find was a github issue, but only containing a request for such a header, not actually describing one. https://github.com/WICG/floc/issues/13 https://github.com/WICG/floc/issues/13 So I understand it correctly, currently publishers can't opt out from this tracking? What if you process sensitive data, e.g. protected by HIPAA, or attorney client communication?
- mellavora 6y ago
  It would be very interesting if such sites had to block floc due to regulatory constraints. Also interesting if GDPR applied. Basically, this would make it extremely risky for companies NOT to opt out of Floc. Which might be the way to kill it
- MatthewWilkes 6y ago
  There's currently a tutorial on how to do this just below this link on the front page, posted 3 hours before this one.
- red0point 6y ago
  Check this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26828967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26828967
  - est31 6y ago
    Thanks!
- input_sh 6y ago
  Short version: Permissions-Policy: interest-cohort=() So in nginx for example: add_header Permissions-Policy interest-cohort=(); It's freaking stupid that it's opt out, but what you're gonna do. I've added it to my own website as soon as I found out. Organization I'm working for will be doing the same.
  - 6y ago
mikaoj85 6y ago
This is just a rant and not very helpful for anyone that gets redirected here. I can’t really see anyone that care about their visitors doing this. Do as the good old times when we showed a banner to IE users below a certain version, and suggest better alternatives.
- bartread 6y ago
  Indeed: it's incredibly obnoxious and will serve only to irritate most website visitors. It won't turn people against Chrome: it'll turn them against website owners. Seems more focussed on getting a reaction than getting an outcome. Very counterproductive.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    The webpage itself literally says: "Redirecting people here is probably a dumb idea."
    - bartread 6y ago
      Then why do it? What's the point of this site? You'd have to read that far to see that, whereas my reaction was more along the lines of, "WTF? Oh, for pity's sake... <<clicks back or closes tab>>".
      - int_19h 6y ago
        I would imagine that the point of the site is to draw attention and get people who actually care about this stuff to discuss it, and figure out some more appropriate solutions.
harha 6y ago
In general, there are so many conflicts of interest in the google ecosystem and good alternatives (though not as well integrated). Even if it’s less convenient it’s good to be open to other options and actively try to use and improve them.
staticelf 6y ago
No one will ever redirect their chrome visitors to this site for a couple of reasons: 1. It is unfriendly and hostile. 2. It doesn't say what alternatives there are. Many people don't know about alternatives. 3. The biggest point of all: sites will lose the majority of their visitors if they redirected away chrome users.
- qwertox 6y ago
  > Well isn't this the ugliest site you've ever visited? That says it all. It's like the redirector wanted to hurt you.
- antonyh 6y ago
  Disagree. I'm here looking for clean code to redirect Chrome users to this message. After all this site claims "The website you WANTED to visit redirected you here." and yet it doesn't give any clues how to do that properly. And no, I'm not trusting user agent values. If I find a valid and good way I'm completely onboard for redirecting.
  - staticelf 6y ago
    Are you sarcastic? If so, I cannot tell. <script> window.location.href = ´//whateverurlyouwant.com' </script> Of course you can just do it server side as well with a simple header set by your webserver or by a backend language.
mavhc 6y ago
Apple does exactly the same thing https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223
- kevingadd 6y ago
  Apple does not have an equivalent to FLoC.
  - artifact_44 6y ago
    lol. uh huh.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Can you elaborate? The linked page explains how Apple has "segments": behavioral groups, based on your private interactions (and explicit personal information too!), used in order to target ads. What's the difference between this and a FLoC cohort?
    - lstamour 6y ago
      Apple uses segments for itself, FLoC is a web standard, so third-parties can de-anonymize as a side-effect: https://github.com/WICG/floc/issues/100 https://github.com/WICG/floc/issues/100 Frankly the same problem exists in PCM’s, Apple’s proposed solution to allow private tracking from ad clicks: https://github.com/privacycg/private-click-measurement/issues/78#issuecomment-814161276 https://github.com/privacycg/private-click-measurement/issue... However, both of these are solutions to help web developers of third-party sites and ad networks track end users anonymously. All would argue that they’re better than third-party cookies, though in reality, users might want to turn off or opt out of both of these anonymize tracking devices. Another way of putting it: I don’t mind sharing my data with Apple when Apple says to trust them. I also don’t mind sharing data with Google when Google says to trust them. I do both on a regular basis with iCloud and Google Drive for example. What I have a problem with is when people try to “solve” third-party cookies in a way that doesn’t increase privacy but simply pretends to. I’m not against first party telemetry data, I love it as an engineer and I know that bugs found and reported with it can be fixed, thus improving my experience with products. What I dislike is when advertising companies can sign deals with Google or Facebook and gain access to lots of info about how well their campaigns are working, or when I don’t know when my data is being used, or when companies start messing with DNS so third-parties look like first-party just to increase revenue. To me it says it all that Google apparently turns off FLoC when inside GDPR zones. Only stronger laws will actually prevent bad behaviour on legitimate rule-abiding services. Only providing less and less means of tracking can we truly start to prevent it technically. Looking for replacements to tracking to support existing business models is doomed to failure as long as people can keep voting, literally and figuratively, for privacy-preserving alternatives and policies.
02020202 6y ago
i switched to ff a year ago. i do not like it, chrome does things better, and i do not like mozilla either. but i got used to it and i am 95% there. the problem today is that there are no options because everyone else is using chrome as core of their "ui", like opera, instead of building their own engine. we've reached the monopoly a long time ago and no, broken, antitrust laws kicked in. now it is too late.
drw85 6y ago
It's always the same reaction here: "use Firefox". Mozilla are in the exact same business and are collecting, using and selling your data. They literally bought several companies that click-track and included their software in Firefox with optional opt out. I guess as long as their ads are plastered on your way to work, you'll just repeat what you see there. Google bad, Mozilla good.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  What precisely is my Firefox install sending to advertisers? Can you point to an example? Which advertisers? Can I prove this by opening Wireshark? Can you point to it in the Firefox source tree?
  - drw85 6y ago
    Mozilla included an add-on called Cliqz, which was activated by default in 1% of downloads. They are a company run by marketing and sold as philanthropists. Which works very well, especially in the tech sphere.
    - flawi 6y ago
      1% of downloads in Germany specifically*. Not that it excuses the practice, but 1% of downloads in Germany is pretty different in scope than 1% of downloads globally.
      - drw85 6y ago
        I'm not against Mozilla or for Google or anything. All i'm saying is, just because there is a bad actor doesn't make the other one good. I see the same thing everywhere these days. In politics, in the tech sphere etc. People tend to view one as good and the other as bad. They're all bad and need to be held accountable all the time.
alexf95 6y ago
I dont understand why people that care so much for privacy just go and switch browsers? Website designers will never change and block users from using their site with Chrome because that would just kill 70% of the traffic. I'm using FF myself and never had a problem with it
- neiman 6y ago
  I'm using FF myself, but there are problems with playing some medias in desktop, and in mobile the problems are too many to count.
- progval 6y ago
  For HN users, sure. But most people are not aware of the choice they make when they use Chrome, or its consequences for their privacy. And web developers designing for Chrome first and Firefox second means it's more convenient for users to use Chrome to visit their websites.
  - dkdbejwi383 6y ago
    Chrome is the internet for a lot of folk these days, the same way "the blue e with the swirl" (Internet Explorer) was the internet in the late 90s/early 00s
  - alexf95 6y ago
    While I think its true that most people aren't aware of the privacy problem, i also think that a big part of that group also just doesn't care.
- spinningslate 6y ago
  > Website designers will never change and block users from using their site with Chrome because that would just kill 70% of the traffic. s/Chrome/Internet Explorer
- ddtaylor 6y ago
  Chrome and Edge have some interesting "integrations" that may seem like really small details but "just work". For Edge when you install Windows 10 for the first time it will automatically log into Live.com (Outlook) accounts so a new user will open that stuff up and immediately have access to their emails, documents from word, etc. Similarly for Chrome all of the Google account stuff is very deeply integrated. Google goes through a decent amount of trouble to trust the shit out of those cookies too. I had a laptop that was unused for 18 months with Chrome on it, when I opened it back up it was still able to access everything without any kind of re-authentication. Firefox on the same laptop needed to be re-authorized. EDIT: Not making the argument that these are valid reasons, just that users are super risk adverse/lazy.
ddtaylor 6y ago
I feel like I've seen this cycle a few times now. Around the 2010-2013 time Firefox was pretty popular and the browser wars had cooled down a bit, various standards had progressed to the point where the web was mostly the same for Firefox users and Chrome users. Then Google Docs, Drive, Voice and a few other apps with the addition of Chromebooks started to appear and all of the sudden a few key features stopped working for Firefox. Probably the most important teachable moment was just how few features it takes to flip users. Maybe we'll see Firefox regain browser share are users dump Chrome. Edge even has a shot at this point - a strange irony bringing us full circle. I guess the real question is how long until we iterate on this loop again? What will compel users to jump back into the embrace of <insert not yet but eventually evil company> versus the relatively consistent arms of Mozilla. Also, FWIW, Mozilla isn't innocent either. Despite being very much _less scummy_ they have still upped their scum factor a bit over the years. Let's not forget they are quite happy to trade millions of dollars to make Google the homepage for their users. While nowhere near as egregious they have some tracking happening ("experiments"), they aggressively push their Firefox Accounts stuff, appear to be selling spots on the homepage tabs, etc.
- slver 6y ago
  > Also, FWIW, Mozilla isn't innocent either. Despite being very much _less scummy_ they have still upped their scum factor a bit over the years. Let's not forget they are quite happy to trade millions of dollars to make Google the homepage for their users. "Innocent Mozilla" wouldn't exist today, first because apparently there's always something to complain about, and second because those people also feed families and pay bills. First thing every web user does, pro or amateur, is configure their browser to access Google easily. One way or another, Firefox will serve Google first, except for a loud minority of people who would use Duck Duck Go or something like that. So why would Mozilla walk away from millions of dollars? Only to see itself bankrupt and Chrome take its already dwindling marketshare?
  - rapnie 6y ago
    > So why would Mozilla walk away from millions of dollars? Only to see itself bankrupt and Chrome take its already dwindling marketshare? These millions sure are a juicy carrot. Question is, were there other revenue model options, before taking on such a huge conflict of interest? One that effectively compromises you and assures you can never take a real principled stance against your competition.
billytetrud 6y ago
It sounds like floc is a way to tag people as a particular type of user rather than track every individual, well, individually. Isn't that an improvement over cookies?
- withinboredom 6y ago
  Since the cohorts are so small (a few thousand), it's extremely likely that the FLOC id and the ip address is all you need to track someone, even behind NAT.
- LordHeini 6y ago
  No because third party cookies (which are needed for cross site tracking) are often (and should be) blocked. The floc is based on your browsing history. It is sort of a hash of the sites you visited and can be requested via a Js call by any (!) site you visit. The floc is shared by a group of users not sure how that works but it is stated that those are a few 1000 large. Combine that with other tracking stuff like fingerprinting and ip and you can easily identify a user (especially if you are google and your adds hang around everywhere in the net).
  - Google234 6y ago
    You can block floc too... which kind of kills your argument that it’s worse since it’s not worse than 3rd party cookies
    - zeusflight 6y ago
      This is what Brave team says about FLoC vs 3rd party cookies [1]: > Google says FLoC is privacy preserving compared to sending third-party cookies. But this is a misleading baseline to compare against. Many browsers don’t send third-party cookies at all; Brave hasn’t ever. Saying a new Chrome feature is privacy-improving only when compared to status-quo Chrome (the most privacy-harming popular browser on the market), is misleading, self-serving, and a further reason for users to run away from Chrome. Most regular users wont install a blocker. But most other browsers block 3rd party cookies by default. Meaning, Chrome's market share will be the only reason FLoC will ever succeed. On top of that Chrome is known to shift the goal posts for blockers. You shouldn't be surprised if FLoC cannot be blocked on Chrome in the future. [1] https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/ https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/
thargor90 6y ago
Any plans to add translations?
aembleton 6y ago
How can Google delete a website from the internet? I mean they could stop use of their TLD, but you could move to another one, or publish an IP address.
SuperSandro2000 6y ago
> Don't even care. Internet Explorer 6 is better at this point. Yeah, sure. It isn't. If you redirect people to that site you can also serve them a 404.

347 points by bjt2n3904 6y ago

Chris2048 6y ago

I feel like the real battle is not in things like this, but bigger future stuff. TBH - I think the future of the web will be different, and will render the past stuff irrelevant, and so the main aim is that the "big players" aren't allowed to gatekeep, and block future development via legal means. Stuff like net-neutrality, and legality of reverse engineering protocols and APIs are key to this. The Ad-war is far from over, so long as people still own their own things - this is why I see the cloud, or at least the monopolisation cloud, and the monopolisation of certain hardware (chip fab etc) as at-least as important as software.

AegirLeet 6y ago

Don't use Chrome and don't use other browser based on Chromium either. As long as Google's engine has 85%+ market share, they can just unilaterally do whatever they want to the web. Use Firefox if you actually want to fix the web.

miguelmota 6y ago
Ditto. Firefox takes security and privacy more seriously as well. Google's business model is selling online advertising which by nature requires data collection and tracking. I've been using Firefox as main browser and for web development for years and never thought about going back to Chrome.
fauigerzigerk 6y ago
I'm not entirely sure whether it is more sustainable to maintain a separate rendering engine than to gradually build up Chromium expertise outside of Google. With FloC, we now have a test case where we will see whether or not other Chromium based browsers can make independent decisions that go against Google's interests.
- zmmmmm 6y ago
  you can build all the expertise you want, it will not achieve much control or influence over what gets put into Chrome and therefore what power Google has to influence or just ignore web standards. The real power comes from voting with your feet and using a different browser altogether.
  - fauigerzigerk 6y ago
    Building Chromium expertise could enable Chromium alternatives such as Vivaldi, Edge or Brave to selectively remove or override features that only benefit Google. I'm wondering whether this is ultimately a more effective strategy if the goal is independence from Google's business model while offering a performant browser that works on all websites. Mozilla has to put tremendous resources into implementing browser features that are uncontroversial and unrelated to Google's business model. And those resources are paid for by Google. That said, there are certainly good arguments in favour of having more than one rendering engine. After all, privacy controversies are not the only reason why competition is healthy.
- topnde 6y ago
  Apparently Vivaldi (based on Chromium) made it's decision (for the time being) https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-get-floced/ https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-ge...
- Yizahi 6y ago
  We already know the answer. Did those so called browsers, but actually Chrome mods, made independent decisions about AMP? Something they can't just change easily. The answer is no. And the same answer will be when Google will make Floc permanent and not switchable in Chrome. No need to test anything again.
xxs 6y ago
I do use Firefox and have been since its used to named 'Netscape'... Everyone in my family uses Firefox on all their devices but that's just a microscopic fraction. Google used all the scummy practices, incl. youtube, gmail, docs and all advised to switch to faster/modern/etc. browser. Android straight out comes w/ chrome that's built-in and cannot be removed (save for rooting). With the amount of wealth and power (and interests), it's unrealistic to expect a change would happen on its right own. Firefox is effectively a slave of google ads money as well. Back in the days Microsoft was close to get split over IE. What google does is in no way less sinister, so unless there is an antitrust process involved, I don't quite see the hegemony of Chrome ending anytime soon (or ever).
CodeGlitch 6y ago
> Use Firefox if you actually want to fix the web. I think "the web" (search engines, youtube, social networks) are a lost cause. Too centralised, too much opportunity for tracking, privacy nightmare, security nightmare. The solution? RSS. How you read RSS content shouldn't be that important - let's stop focusing so much on rendering pages, and more on delivery.

jasonvorhe 6y ago

> Internet Explorer 6 is better at this point. Oh come on.

user-the-name 6y ago

What an absolutely insufferable site. Completely ruins any point it might have had by being belittling and smug.

charcircuit 6y ago

This website fails to argue why floc is bad for me. Does floc give me worse ads? Does floc slow down the browser? Does floc use up more memory?

anaisbetts 6y ago
People have framed in their minds that "FLoC == tracking, no FLoC == no tracking". But that is actually 0% true, FLoC is less tracking than what is currently happening today People think they are getting more tracked by this but in reality it is trying to make them be less tracked
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  less tracking is still tracking. If I install a system for my 70+ yro family members or give screens to small kids, I want the option of guaranteed no tracking. Saying use less tracking instead of full tracking is like saying eat this diet of excrement which contains less excrement.
  - charcircuit 6y ago
    Tracking isn't bad though. I don't see how a person age would make it any more good or bad to do either. Without tracking the internet wouldn't even work at a large scale. All it would take would be 1 malicious user and it would be impossible to know who it is since you aren't keeping that information around.
- throwawayffffas 6y ago
  Floc is trying to make tracking exclusively googles domain. By eliminating the technologies available to other parties. They are straight up abusing their dominant market position, the "less tracking" bit is there so that when they are in front of a judge they can claim they did it all for the users and it's a net benefit to the users so they don't have to roll it back.
  - charcircuit 6y ago

bitlevel 6y ago

If you want to keep the Chrome backend, but don't want to be FLoC'd, then consider Vivaldi: https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-get-floced/ https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-ge...

pelorat 6y ago

Sitting here, with Chrome, signed into all Google services via the Chrome integration, zero of the privacy options disabled in my Google account. Ohhh, I feel so dirty now. Or not.

mousetree 6y ago
Pelorat, Foundation?

xaduha 6y ago

I can imagine a reaction at Google like 'They are up in arms against this?! But this is nothing compared to what we do already!'. This is their olive branch, in a way. Putting things in the open is better than not. This is not a problem than can be solved by technical means, in my opinion. America doesn't even have GDPR.

cl3misch 6y ago

> Google Chrome has become a slimy browser [...] I don't think you'll convince any non-technical users with such language.

egor2820 6y ago
It doesn't convince me, and I'm highly technical user, I just don't want to jump to an unknown browser every time someone thinks my browser tracks my history, anyone's history is so over exaggerated this time.
dbbk 6y ago
No one can even articulate in plain english why this is a bad thing for people or affects their lives in any tangible way.

dt3ft 6y ago

We lost the war, haven't we?

nine_k 6y ago
The war has not ended yet. I see no point in declaring defeat.
bjt2n3904 6y ago
> "I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. > "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." It looks bleak... but hey. Hobbits toppled the Eye of Sauron.
- MayeulC 6y ago
  Somehow this reminds me a bit of the bible... Luke 22:42 > “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”
ehnto 6y ago
It depends on the scope I think. There's obviously nothing stopping anyone from running other browsers, blocking tracking as best they can, anonymizing as much as possible, or hell even starting their own networks to avoid it all together. The technology is still there, still open and free. But the net now contains the general populace, and as such significant power has been amassed by controlling it. I don't believe the internet as we know it is in the hands of the netizens anymore, and I have to doubt that the majority of the netizens would even care. Google and Amazon have both showed continued behavior showing that they'll eat, buy or smother anything that comes a little too close to them, why should we expect that it would be any different if we tried to kick their behaviors off the network?
techrat 6y ago
> Chromium is open source > Nearly every browser is based on open source code "We lost the war, haven't we?" What's stopping you, or anyone else, from forking code and making it privacy focused? Microsoft got complacent and IE lost to Mozilla. Mozilla got bloated, lazy and they lost their focus after several missteps, several of which alienated the fuck out of the FOSS community. (Forcing several distros to fork and rebrand to something like Iceweasel? Seriously? Way to dilute your own branding.) Chrome took over because it simply was the better browser. It brought a lot of new things to the table that made Firefox look stale in relatively short amount of time. Is it still the better browser? I don't think that's quite as clear cut these days... but unfortunately, browsers like "Brave" aren't doing anyone any favors with their misleading presentation, sketchy tactics and meme like spamming from users who don't look beyond bitelines. So when it comes down to it, every Chromium fork that currently exists still has a business, with business motives, behind it. The source is there. Does somebody want to make an effort to fork it and let it be the true privacy focused browser or are we just going to complain about losing a war that nobody's really fighting?

liquidise 6y ago

> Stop using Google Chrome, and install another browser As a thought experiment, i've wondered what would happen if webdevs started to add those ugly "This website does not support Chrome, please install [Firefox](...) for the best experience." Does Chrome have the branding to sustain it? Would the websites take the traffic hit? If trends continue as they have the last 5+ years, it may be a test worth running.

eertami 6y ago
>As a thought experiment, i've wondered what would happen if webdevs started to add those ugly "This website does not support Chrome, please install [Firefox](...) for the best experience." I use Chrome for exactly one reason: adding shortcuts to websites as an app. Firefox at one point had (very broken) support for this, but they've since removed it (on desktop, it's still possible on the mobile app). It is simply untrue that Firefox gives me the best experience. If you're going to block Chrome because of web privacy ideology, then just say that. Don't lie to your visitors. Telling me Chrome "isn't supported" is obvious hogwash. Instead you should tell me that you have blocked it, and why you have blocked it, and maybe then I would consider opening your page in another browser. Strong arming users with false pretenses is deplorable, no matter which side is doing it.
- why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago
  Wait, you are using shortcuts instead of bookmarks or just keeping the tabs opened and that is the reason to use Chrome? That's one of the most unique reasons for keeping using certain browser I've even seen.
  - eertami 6y ago
    I don't think keeping app shortcuts for SPAs is niche at all. I've seen plenty of people do it. It is a much better user experience. With things like Gmail or WhatsApp Web I don't want them to be another browser tab, I want to be able to switch to it and control the windows with my window manager. I am never closing these windows, and trying to find them among open browser tabs in different browser windows is not fun. Browser tabs are a not a good replacement for desktop window management.

est31 6y ago

> Some website owners think the best strategy is to opt their websites out of FLoC by attaching a header. I've tried to look up which header that would be. The only thing I could find was a github issue, but only containing a request for such a header, not actually describing one. https://github.com/WICG/floc/issues/13 https://github.com/WICG/floc/issues/13 So I understand it correctly, currently publishers can't opt out from this tracking? What if you process sensitive data, e.g. protected by HIPAA, or attorney client communication?

mellavora 6y ago
It would be very interesting if such sites had to block floc due to regulatory constraints. Also interesting if GDPR applied. Basically, this would make it extremely risky for companies NOT to opt out of Floc. Which might be the way to kill it
MatthewWilkes 6y ago
There's currently a tutorial on how to do this just below this link on the front page, posted 3 hours before this one.
red0point 6y ago
Check this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26828967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26828967
- est31 6y ago
  Thanks!
input_sh 6y ago
Short version: Permissions-Policy: interest-cohort=() So in nginx for example: add_header Permissions-Policy interest-cohort=(); It's freaking stupid that it's opt out, but what you're gonna do. I've added it to my own website as soon as I found out. Organization I'm working for will be doing the same.
- 6y ago

mikaoj85 6y ago

This is just a rant and not very helpful for anyone that gets redirected here. I can’t really see anyone that care about their visitors doing this. Do as the good old times when we showed a banner to IE users below a certain version, and suggest better alternatives.

bartread 6y ago
Indeed: it's incredibly obnoxious and will serve only to irritate most website visitors. It won't turn people against Chrome: it'll turn them against website owners. Seems more focussed on getting a reaction than getting an outcome. Very counterproductive.
- int_19h 6y ago
  The webpage itself literally says: "Redirecting people here is probably a dumb idea."
  - bartread 6y ago
    Then why do it? What's the point of this site? You'd have to read that far to see that, whereas my reaction was more along the lines of, "WTF? Oh, for pity's sake... <<clicks back or closes tab>>".
    - int_19h 6y ago
      I would imagine that the point of the site is to draw attention and get people who actually care about this stuff to discuss it, and figure out some more appropriate solutions.

harha 6y ago

In general, there are so many conflicts of interest in the google ecosystem and good alternatives (though not as well integrated). Even if it’s less convenient it’s good to be open to other options and actively try to use and improve them.

staticelf 6y ago

No one will ever redirect their chrome visitors to this site for a couple of reasons: 1. It is unfriendly and hostile. 2. It doesn't say what alternatives there are. Many people don't know about alternatives. 3. The biggest point of all: sites will lose the majority of their visitors if they redirected away chrome users.

qwertox 6y ago
> Well isn't this the ugliest site you've ever visited? That says it all. It's like the redirector wanted to hurt you.
antonyh 6y ago
Disagree. I'm here looking for clean code to redirect Chrome users to this message. After all this site claims "The website you WANTED to visit redirected you here." and yet it doesn't give any clues how to do that properly. And no, I'm not trusting user agent values. If I find a valid and good way I'm completely onboard for redirecting.
- staticelf 6y ago
  Are you sarcastic? If so, I cannot tell. <script> window.location.href = ´//whateverurlyouwant.com' </script> Of course you can just do it server side as well with a simple header set by your webserver or by a backend language.

mavhc 6y ago

Apple does exactly the same thing https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205223

kevingadd 6y ago
Apple does not have an equivalent to FLoC.
- artifact_44 6y ago
  lol. uh huh.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Can you elaborate? The linked page explains how Apple has "segments": behavioral groups, based on your private interactions (and explicit personal information too!), used in order to target ads. What's the difference between this and a FLoC cohort?
  - lstamour 6y ago
    Apple uses segments for itself, FLoC is a web standard, so third-parties can de-anonymize as a side-effect: https://github.com/WICG/floc/issues/100 https://github.com/WICG/floc/issues/100 Frankly the same problem exists in PCM’s, Apple’s proposed solution to allow private tracking from ad clicks: https://github.com/privacycg/private-click-measurement/issues/78#issuecomment-814161276 https://github.com/privacycg/private-click-measurement/issue... However, both of these are solutions to help web developers of third-party sites and ad networks track end users anonymously. All would argue that they’re better than third-party cookies, though in reality, users might want to turn off or opt out of both of these anonymize tracking devices. Another way of putting it: I don’t mind sharing my data with Apple when Apple says to trust them. I also don’t mind sharing data with Google when Google says to trust them. I do both on a regular basis with iCloud and Google Drive for example. What I have a problem with is when people try to “solve” third-party cookies in a way that doesn’t increase privacy but simply pretends to. I’m not against first party telemetry data, I love it as an engineer and I know that bugs found and reported with it can be fixed, thus improving my experience with products. What I dislike is when advertising companies can sign deals with Google or Facebook and gain access to lots of info about how well their campaigns are working, or when I don’t know when my data is being used, or when companies start messing with DNS so third-parties look like first-party just to increase revenue. To me it says it all that Google apparently turns off FLoC when inside GDPR zones. Only stronger laws will actually prevent bad behaviour on legitimate rule-abiding services. Only providing less and less means of tracking can we truly start to prevent it technically. Looking for replacements to tracking to support existing business models is doomed to failure as long as people can keep voting, literally and figuratively, for privacy-preserving alternatives and policies.

02020202 6y ago

i switched to ff a year ago. i do not like it, chrome does things better, and i do not like mozilla either. but i got used to it and i am 95% there. the problem today is that there are no options because everyone else is using chrome as core of their "ui", like opera, instead of building their own engine. we've reached the monopoly a long time ago and no, broken, antitrust laws kicked in. now it is too late.

drw85 6y ago

It's always the same reaction here: "use Firefox". Mozilla are in the exact same business and are collecting, using and selling your data. They literally bought several companies that click-track and included their software in Firefox with optional opt out. I guess as long as their ads are plastered on your way to work, you'll just repeat what you see there. Google bad, Mozilla good.

kevingadd 6y ago
What precisely is my Firefox install sending to advertisers? Can you point to an example? Which advertisers? Can I prove this by opening Wireshark? Can you point to it in the Firefox source tree?
- drw85 6y ago
  Mozilla included an add-on called Cliqz, which was activated by default in 1% of downloads. They are a company run by marketing and sold as philanthropists. Which works very well, especially in the tech sphere.
  - flawi 6y ago
    1% of downloads in Germany specifically*. Not that it excuses the practice, but 1% of downloads in Germany is pretty different in scope than 1% of downloads globally.
    - drw85 6y ago
      I'm not against Mozilla or for Google or anything. All i'm saying is, just because there is a bad actor doesn't make the other one good. I see the same thing everywhere these days. In politics, in the tech sphere etc. People tend to view one as good and the other as bad. They're all bad and need to be held accountable all the time.

alexf95 6y ago

I dont understand why people that care so much for privacy just go and switch browsers? Website designers will never change and block users from using their site with Chrome because that would just kill 70% of the traffic. I'm using FF myself and never had a problem with it

neiman 6y ago
I'm using FF myself, but there are problems with playing some medias in desktop, and in mobile the problems are too many to count.
progval 6y ago
For HN users, sure. But most people are not aware of the choice they make when they use Chrome, or its consequences for their privacy. And web developers designing for Chrome first and Firefox second means it's more convenient for users to use Chrome to visit their websites.
- dkdbejwi383 6y ago
  Chrome is the internet for a lot of folk these days, the same way "the blue e with the swirl" (Internet Explorer) was the internet in the late 90s/early 00s
- alexf95 6y ago
  While I think its true that most people aren't aware of the privacy problem, i also think that a big part of that group also just doesn't care.
spinningslate 6y ago
> Website designers will never change and block users from using their site with Chrome because that would just kill 70% of the traffic. s/Chrome/Internet Explorer
ddtaylor 6y ago
Chrome and Edge have some interesting "integrations" that may seem like really small details but "just work". For Edge when you install Windows 10 for the first time it will automatically log into Live.com (Outlook) accounts so a new user will open that stuff up and immediately have access to their emails, documents from word, etc. Similarly for Chrome all of the Google account stuff is very deeply integrated. Google goes through a decent amount of trouble to trust the shit out of those cookies too. I had a laptop that was unused for 18 months with Chrome on it, when I opened it back up it was still able to access everything without any kind of re-authentication. Firefox on the same laptop needed to be re-authorized. EDIT: Not making the argument that these are valid reasons, just that users are super risk adverse/lazy.

ddtaylor 6y ago

I feel like I've seen this cycle a few times now. Around the 2010-2013 time Firefox was pretty popular and the browser wars had cooled down a bit, various standards had progressed to the point where the web was mostly the same for Firefox users and Chrome users. Then Google Docs, Drive, Voice and a few other apps with the addition of Chromebooks started to appear and all of the sudden a few key features stopped working for Firefox. Probably the most important teachable moment was just how few features it takes to flip users. Maybe we'll see Firefox regain browser share are users dump Chrome. Edge even has a shot at this point - a strange irony bringing us full circle. I guess the real question is how long until we iterate on this loop again? What will compel users to jump back into the embrace of <insert not yet but eventually evil company> versus the relatively consistent arms of Mozilla. Also, FWIW, Mozilla isn't innocent either. Despite being very much _less scummy_ they have still upped their scum factor a bit over the years. Let's not forget they are quite happy to trade millions of dollars to make Google the homepage for their users. While nowhere near as egregious they have some tracking happening ("experiments"), they aggressively push their Firefox Accounts stuff, appear to be selling spots on the homepage tabs, etc.

slver 6y ago
> Also, FWIW, Mozilla isn't innocent either. Despite being very much _less scummy_ they have still upped their scum factor a bit over the years. Let's not forget they are quite happy to trade millions of dollars to make Google the homepage for their users. "Innocent Mozilla" wouldn't exist today, first because apparently there's always something to complain about, and second because those people also feed families and pay bills. First thing every web user does, pro or amateur, is configure their browser to access Google easily. One way or another, Firefox will serve Google first, except for a loud minority of people who would use Duck Duck Go or something like that. So why would Mozilla walk away from millions of dollars? Only to see itself bankrupt and Chrome take its already dwindling marketshare?
- rapnie 6y ago
  > So why would Mozilla walk away from millions of dollars? Only to see itself bankrupt and Chrome take its already dwindling marketshare? These millions sure are a juicy carrot. Question is, were there other revenue model options, before taking on such a huge conflict of interest? One that effectively compromises you and assures you can never take a real principled stance against your competition.

billytetrud 6y ago

It sounds like floc is a way to tag people as a particular type of user rather than track every individual, well, individually. Isn't that an improvement over cookies?

withinboredom 6y ago
Since the cohorts are so small (a few thousand), it's extremely likely that the FLOC id and the ip address is all you need to track someone, even behind NAT.
LordHeini 6y ago
No because third party cookies (which are needed for cross site tracking) are often (and should be) blocked. The floc is based on your browsing history. It is sort of a hash of the sites you visited and can be requested via a Js call by any (!) site you visit. The floc is shared by a group of users not sure how that works but it is stated that those are a few 1000 large. Combine that with other tracking stuff like fingerprinting and ip and you can easily identify a user (especially if you are google and your adds hang around everywhere in the net).
- Google234 6y ago
  You can block floc too... which kind of kills your argument that it’s worse since it’s not worse than 3rd party cookies
  - zeusflight 6y ago
    This is what Brave team says about FLoC vs 3rd party cookies [1]: > Google says FLoC is privacy preserving compared to sending third-party cookies. But this is a misleading baseline to compare against. Many browsers don’t send third-party cookies at all; Brave hasn’t ever. Saying a new Chrome feature is privacy-improving only when compared to status-quo Chrome (the most privacy-harming popular browser on the market), is misleading, self-serving, and a further reason for users to run away from Chrome. Most regular users wont install a blocker. But most other browsers block 3rd party cookies by default. Meaning, Chrome's market share will be the only reason FLoC will ever succeed. On top of that Chrome is known to shift the goal posts for blockers. You shouldn't be surprised if FLoC cannot be blocked on Chrome in the future. [1] https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/ https://brave.com/why-brave-disables-floc/

thargor90 6y ago

Any plans to add translations?

aembleton 6y ago

How can Google delete a website from the internet? I mean they could stop use of their TLD, but you could move to another one, or publish an IP address.

SuperSandro2000 6y ago

> Don't even care. Internet Explorer 6 is better at this point. Yeah, sure. It isn't. If you redirect people to that site you can also serve them a 404.