3 ms·

> What adding this header does is exclude your website from being used when calcualting a user’s cohort. Cohorts are calculated locally from browsing history; s

> What adding this header does is exclude your website from being used when calcualting a user’s cohort. Cohorts are calculated locally from browsing history; sites that send this header will be excluded from this calculation. That's exactly the point, so where's the misinformation? Edit: The information from Google seems to be contradictory. From https://web.dev/floc/ https://web.dev/floc/ > For pages that haven't been excluded, a page visit will be included in the browser's FLoC calculation if document.interestCohort() is used on the page. This seems to imply that not calling document.interestCohort() (or not having ads on the page during the trial) is the same as opting out. But then on https://github.com/WICG/floc#opting-out-of-computation https://github.com/WICG/floc#opting-out-of-computation > A site should be able to declare that it does not want to be included in the user's list of sites for cohort calculation. This can be accomplished via a new interest-cohort permissions policy. This policy will be default allow. This makes a lot more sense. Why would Google want to exclude sites from calculations just because they don't make use of the FLoc cohort themselves?

xg15 6y ago
> Why would Google want to exclude sites from calculations just because they don't make use of the FLoc cohort themselves? I think it would make sense as a measure to mimic the old behaviour of 3rd-party cookies and avoid the whole "my site is being used for tracking even though I didn't include any trackers" problem: Sites that use FLoC would effectively behave as if they had all joined the same single ad network. Calling document.interestCohort() would be equivalent to including a tracking script. (Site owner gets infos from the script, at the same time the ad network gets infos about the user and about your site) If course the tiny difference is that with cookies that was an actual hard technical limitation, while with FLoC it's just Google doing this out of the infinite goodness of their hearts. As such, I don't really trust them on this and they already seem to muddy the waters with the origin trial exception.
Seirdy 6y ago
I addressed concerns about cohort calculation in the sections "What explicitly opting out actually entails" and "This has happened before". I don't think we should normalize adding a Google work-around to every server every time Google does exactly what we all know it will do, esp. when that work around isn't guaranteed to work and is dependent upon Google's goodwill.

xg15 6y ago

> Why would Google want to exclude sites from calculations just because they don't make use of the FLoc cohort themselves? I think it would make sense as a measure to mimic the old behaviour of 3rd-party cookies and avoid the whole "my site is being used for tracking even though I didn't include any trackers" problem: Sites that use FLoC would effectively behave as if they had all joined the same single ad network. Calling document.interestCohort() would be equivalent to including a tracking script. (Site owner gets infos from the script, at the same time the ad network gets infos about the user and about your site) If course the tiny difference is that with cookies that was an actual hard technical limitation, while with FLoC it's just Google doing this out of the infinite goodness of their hearts. As such, I don't really trust them on this and they already seem to muddy the waters with the origin trial exception.

Seirdy 6y ago

I addressed concerns about cohort calculation in the sections "What explicitly opting out actually entails" and "This has happened before". I don't think we should normalize adding a Google work-around to every server every time Google does exactly what we all know it will do, esp. when that work around isn't guaranteed to work and is dependent upon Google's goodwill.