4 ms·

Is it just me, or is FLoC simply an act? A way for Google to say, "See, regulators, we're trying! You don't have to regulate us, we're doing it on our own!"

Is it just me, or is FLoC simply an act? A way for Google to say, "See, regulators, we're trying! You don't have to regulate us, we're doing it on our own!" While they know full well the web will never get on board with this. Seems like just a way to buy time, to muddy the waters. Make the ecosystem more complicated. Pin the blame on others for not getting on board with your attempt to "fix" the situation. "We tried our best, but Mozilla won't join us!!"

rchaud 5y ago
If it is, it's a pretty poor act. It doesn't matter if Firefox, Brave and Edge don't want to use Floc. Google controls Chrome and almost all of the non-FB digital ad ecosystem. They can still derive enormous benefits from it once third party cookies are extinct.
soared 5y ago
I don't agree with this, but there is evidence that kind of supports it. The W3c group set up to build on privacy sandbox that came up with floc/petrel/etc wrote an open letter to the w3c advisory about how google was refusing to work with the group. https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/17/aggrieved_ad_tech_types_decry/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/17/aggrieved_ad_tech_typ...
tmccrary55 5y ago
Kinda Gates or Ballmer era Microsoftish?
nonbirithm 5y ago
The way I see FLoC is that it's nothing more than a compromise. This isn't a web standards feature like WebMIDI or WebHID that fulfills the (ever expanding) requests for features from web developers. It isn't a feature that the average user would ever ask for. It's simply a way for Google's ads business to continue functioning in spite of a web community that is gradually becoming privacy-conscious.
- chmod775 5y ago
  "Okay, it is true I can do nothing to force you to eat this pile of poo and I have nothing as means of payment, but let's make a compromise: How about you eat half?" How about no, Google? DRM made its way into browsers only barely, and in that case they at least had something people wanted.
  - perryizgr8 5y ago
    > DRM made its way into browsers only barely, and in that case they at least had something people wanted. What did DRM have that people wanted?
    - GekkePrutser 5y ago
      Netflix. People are giving out about browsers and devices not supporting widevine now :(
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
GekkePrutser 5y ago
No it's much more than an act it's a way for Google to keep doing business as usual while skirting regulation, and at the same time establishing a monopoly on the advertising technology of the future. Because Google will be the gatekeeper of FLoC. Whereas with cookies they're just one of the players, albeit a huge one. Your can bet they will throw every bit of lobbying power they have at this. No wonder some larger companies like Microsoft are not giving a hard NO.

rchaud 5y ago

If it is, it's a pretty poor act. It doesn't matter if Firefox, Brave and Edge don't want to use Floc. Google controls Chrome and almost all of the non-FB digital ad ecosystem. They can still derive enormous benefits from it once third party cookies are extinct.

soared 5y ago

I don't agree with this, but there is evidence that kind of supports it. The W3c group set up to build on privacy sandbox that came up with floc/petrel/etc wrote an open letter to the w3c advisory about how google was refusing to work with the group. https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/17/aggrieved_ad_tech_types_decry/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/17/aggrieved_ad_tech_typ...

tmccrary55 5y ago

Kinda Gates or Ballmer era Microsoftish?

nonbirithm 5y ago

The way I see FLoC is that it's nothing more than a compromise. This isn't a web standards feature like WebMIDI or WebHID that fulfills the (ever expanding) requests for features from web developers. It isn't a feature that the average user would ever ask for. It's simply a way for Google's ads business to continue functioning in spite of a web community that is gradually becoming privacy-conscious.

chmod775 5y ago
"Okay, it is true I can do nothing to force you to eat this pile of poo and I have nothing as means of payment, but let's make a compromise: How about you eat half?" How about no, Google? DRM made its way into browsers only barely, and in that case they at least had something people wanted.
- perryizgr8 5y ago
  > DRM made its way into browsers only barely, and in that case they at least had something people wanted. What did DRM have that people wanted?
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    Netflix. People are giving out about browsers and devices not supporting widevine now :(
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

GekkePrutser 5y ago

No it's much more than an act it's a way for Google to keep doing business as usual while skirting regulation, and at the same time establishing a monopoly on the advertising technology of the future. Because Google will be the gatekeeper of FLoC. Whereas with cookies they're just one of the players, albeit a huge one. Your can bet they will throw every bit of lobbying power they have at this. No wonder some larger companies like Microsoft are not giving a hard NO.