6 ms·

WordPress is 41% of the web. If this goes through and FLoC is disabled by default by WordPress, will FLoC be dead on arrival?

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
Between large web publishing platforms and all alternate browsers blocking FLoC, I think we could kill it, yes. WordPress is used by a lot of marketing focused folks though, so we'll see if WP is able to land this.
- llarsson 5y ago
  The ones in marketing will rather immediately request that it is turned on instead.
- ceres 5y ago
  Exactly. A big part of the WordPress community are publishers, bloggers, affiliate marketers, etc who rely on ads to generate revenue. I'm not sure they'd be too thrilled with this proposal.
  - sircastor 5y ago
    Sure, but this doesn’t mean no advertising, it means no default supporting FLoC. I know advertisers aren’t going to like it, but I doubt it means they’ll give up advertising altogether. I wonder if AdWords will require use of floc headers
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      > I wonder if AdWords will require use of floc headers I don't know, but I guess they won't. Instead, you'll just get worse targeting on your site if your users don't send the headers. Which I think may also not be very popular with WordPress users, but I guess the proof will be in the pudding.
- nonbirithm 5y ago
  It's staggering how much leverage WordPress has. They were going to stop using React because of the patents clause, and only a week later Facebook caved and relicensed it as MIT.
  - l00sed 5y ago
    This is very interesting. My web development role right now is at a marketing company that works pretty exclusively with Wordpress. I've always been so interested in learning about the next best thing that I hadn't given Wordpress much thought. Now, using it all the time, it's popularity is very understandable as an interface for people who are not technically savvy to maintain their own website. I feel like the Wordpress community isn't the loudest, but it is certainly a force. I think, as a brand, this move definitely has me more excited about working with their software.
abhinav22 5y ago
Google has such a monopoly that it will take a lot to overcome their plans. Glad to see WP taking a stand - I never knew that FLOC would be so bad. The WP proposal made it clear that it’s a discriminatory technology.
markovbot 5y ago
Most likely google will just turn off that silly opt out functionality. It's not like anyone's going to stop using their spyware browser.
- feanaro 5y ago
  I'd like to see them try that and see how that flies.
- karaterobot 5y ago
  I wonder whether, if WP takes the stance that FLoC is a security risk, whether they'd also consider a version of Chrome that doesn't allow opting out of it a security risk as well. And, if not, why not?
- Silhouette 5y ago
  Surely that depends on what their experience using it is, just like every other "winning" browser before that is no longer winning? If FLoC generates so much hostility within the web dev community that a few major sites/platforms start actively blocking it, and if Google responds by ignoring the opt-outs in Chrome, and if the community responds with a SOPA-like "no access using Chrome for the next 48 hours then, here are some other fine browsers you can use instead that don't invade your privacy in this way", Google will simply be outgunned. However, you probably need platforms on the scale of WP and/or some sites with huge audiences like Facebook/Wikipedia/Netflix/Reddit to be on board for the effect to be fast and powerful enough to make a difference.
  - markovbot 5y ago
    >and if the community responds with a SOPA-like "no access using Chrome for the next 48 hours then, here are some other fine browsers you can use instead that don't invade your privacy in this way" that seems unlikely.
    - Silhouette 5y ago
      Is it, though? It appears that Google is trying to rewrite the rules of how browsers and the Web work, with the appearance of being on the side of privacy, but actually introducing an alternative method of surveillance that is going to be less favourable to almost everyone except Google. How many of the huge-audience sites are potentially going to lose out from that, not least because they rely on advertising themselves for the lion's share of their revenues? This whole discussion started with a proposal from a platform that is supporting nearly half of the sites people are visiting. That puts WP in a unique and potentially very powerful position here as well, and evidently they're interested in trying to force the issue. And finally, the SOPA experience has shown that it is not entirely implausible for large numbers of sites to collaborate in this way if they feel the threat is serious enough. So if FLoC is as bad as the critics are suggesting, it doesn't seem entirely out of the question. There seem to be quite a few powerful organisations that would have a variety of motivations for wanting to give Google a bloody nose over this one.
enlyth 5y ago
This assumes the majority of these Wordpress websites will update to the latest version in a timely manner
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  A key point of this is that if they consider it a security flaw, they will backport it into point releases for WordPress blogs that haven't done major upgrades in years.
- codegeek 5y ago
  If added as a security patch, lot of websites will auto update.
  - spockz 5y ago
    I’m not sure whether that would be wise to do for WP. It will show that WP can and is willing to basically push any update to sites running WP just to further a cause of the company. Mweh if it doesn’t break anything. But terrible if it breaks something.
    - withinboredom 5y ago
      It's the WordPress Foundation and the code is driven by a community, not really a company with a chain of command...
codegeek 5y ago
"WordPress is 41% of the web" This blows my mind every time. Even though I know it.
- skybrian 5y ago
  I don’t know it. Where did you learn it?
  - itcrowd 5y ago
    https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_management https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_management 41.1% of websites
    - skybrian 5y ago
      Okay, thanks! It looks like it’s based on the top ten million websites by traffic, but weighted equally. Maybe there are lots of low-traffic WordPress sites?
      - withinboredom 5y ago
        > Maybe there are lots of low-traffic WordPress sites? And many, many more high traffic websites. There's even some Facebook landing pages running WordPress and other many high profile sites[1]. 1: https://wpvip.com/ https://wpvip.com/
gruez 5y ago
>WordPress is 41% of the web By domains or by visits?
- redwall_hp 5y ago
  As far as I'm aware, it's flawed in the same way as the PHP popularity stat: domains that report it in an HTTP header. I don't know about you, but I don't put a header advertising that I built a site with Python and Flask or whatever.
  - neolog 5y ago
    I guess those go in the "None" bucket, so I think they are counted. https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_management https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_management
BiteCode_dev 5y ago
Well, FLoC is implemented on Chrome, you don't disable it, you opt out with a Header. So if Googles find that too many people uses the header, they can just decide to ignore it from now on. Who is going to prevent them to do that ?
- ahartmetz 5y ago
  Possibly GDPR? As an explicit no-consent to tracking? Not rhethorical questions, I know too little about the details.
  - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
    When you use Chrome for the first time, it makes you accept its ToS which tells you they are going to track you.
    - cseleborg 5y ago
      IANAL, but my understanding is that this is not in line with GDPR. You are not allowed to force the customer into tracking, which effectively happens in the scenario you describe since the user can't use the browser without accepting the ToS. Also, you have to be quite explicit: simply burying tracking in 52 pages of unrelated legalese is not compliant with GDPR. Someone please chime in if I'm wrong here. I'm no lawyer but do take these things seriously (I'm trying my best to provide a tracking-free website.)
    - t0mas88 5y ago
      They will lose that case under GDPR, you can't hide the details in ToS and hope the user doesn't see it. You must get informed and freely given consent. Google is violating both, because I can't click "No" and the information is so hidden you can't expect a normal consumer to find it. It will take a few years but they're going to get hit very very hard by EU privacy regulators.
      - BiteCode_dev 5y ago
ognarb 5y ago
My fear is that it will end up exactly like the do not track headers and that at some point Google won't listen to the disable Floc header.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  Why is that a problem? If I visit ognarb.com, what right do you have to tell me "You aren't allowed to use that fact for developing a profile about yourself"? You send me a bunch of data, including headers, and I'm more or less free to do with that what I want within the privacy of my own browser. I don't have to listen to any of your headers if I don't want to.
tootie 5y ago
I think that stat is more like 41% of servers, not 41% of traffic.
nightpool 5y ago
FLoC is designed to be opt-in, so uh...... no? Currently, for A/B testing, FLoC is automatically opting-in 0.5% of sites that serve ads, but that's only for a small testing population, the idea is that FLoC history contribution will be opt-in exclusively. (There's a proposal that you have to contribute to FLoC history calculations to get access to a user's FLoC identifier)

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

Between large web publishing platforms and all alternate browsers blocking FLoC, I think we could kill it, yes. WordPress is used by a lot of marketing focused folks though, so we'll see if WP is able to land this.

llarsson 5y ago
The ones in marketing will rather immediately request that it is turned on instead.
ceres 5y ago
Exactly. A big part of the WordPress community are publishers, bloggers, affiliate marketers, etc who rely on ads to generate revenue. I'm not sure they'd be too thrilled with this proposal.
- sircastor 5y ago
  Sure, but this doesn’t mean no advertising, it means no default supporting FLoC. I know advertisers aren’t going to like it, but I doubt it means they’ll give up advertising altogether. I wonder if AdWords will require use of floc headers
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    > I wonder if AdWords will require use of floc headers I don't know, but I guess they won't. Instead, you'll just get worse targeting on your site if your users don't send the headers. Which I think may also not be very popular with WordPress users, but I guess the proof will be in the pudding.
nonbirithm 5y ago
It's staggering how much leverage WordPress has. They were going to stop using React because of the patents clause, and only a week later Facebook caved and relicensed it as MIT.
- l00sed 5y ago
  This is very interesting. My web development role right now is at a marketing company that works pretty exclusively with Wordpress. I've always been so interested in learning about the next best thing that I hadn't given Wordpress much thought. Now, using it all the time, it's popularity is very understandable as an interface for people who are not technically savvy to maintain their own website. I feel like the Wordpress community isn't the loudest, but it is certainly a force. I think, as a brand, this move definitely has me more excited about working with their software.

abhinav22 5y ago

Google has such a monopoly that it will take a lot to overcome their plans. Glad to see WP taking a stand - I never knew that FLOC would be so bad. The WP proposal made it clear that it’s a discriminatory technology.

markovbot 5y ago

Most likely google will just turn off that silly opt out functionality. It's not like anyone's going to stop using their spyware browser.

feanaro 5y ago
I'd like to see them try that and see how that flies.
karaterobot 5y ago
I wonder whether, if WP takes the stance that FLoC is a security risk, whether they'd also consider a version of Chrome that doesn't allow opting out of it a security risk as well. And, if not, why not?
Silhouette 5y ago
Surely that depends on what their experience using it is, just like every other "winning" browser before that is no longer winning? If FLoC generates so much hostility within the web dev community that a few major sites/platforms start actively blocking it, and if Google responds by ignoring the opt-outs in Chrome, and if the community responds with a SOPA-like "no access using Chrome for the next 48 hours then, here are some other fine browsers you can use instead that don't invade your privacy in this way", Google will simply be outgunned. However, you probably need platforms on the scale of WP and/or some sites with huge audiences like Facebook/Wikipedia/Netflix/Reddit to be on board for the effect to be fast and powerful enough to make a difference.
- markovbot 5y ago
  >and if the community responds with a SOPA-like "no access using Chrome for the next 48 hours then, here are some other fine browsers you can use instead that don't invade your privacy in this way" that seems unlikely.
  - Silhouette 5y ago
    Is it, though? It appears that Google is trying to rewrite the rules of how browsers and the Web work, with the appearance of being on the side of privacy, but actually introducing an alternative method of surveillance that is going to be less favourable to almost everyone except Google. How many of the huge-audience sites are potentially going to lose out from that, not least because they rely on advertising themselves for the lion's share of their revenues? This whole discussion started with a proposal from a platform that is supporting nearly half of the sites people are visiting. That puts WP in a unique and potentially very powerful position here as well, and evidently they're interested in trying to force the issue. And finally, the SOPA experience has shown that it is not entirely implausible for large numbers of sites to collaborate in this way if they feel the threat is serious enough. So if FLoC is as bad as the critics are suggesting, it doesn't seem entirely out of the question. There seem to be quite a few powerful organisations that would have a variety of motivations for wanting to give Google a bloody nose over this one.

enlyth 5y ago

This assumes the majority of these Wordpress websites will update to the latest version in a timely manner

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ocdtrekkie 5y ago
A key point of this is that if they consider it a security flaw, they will backport it into point releases for WordPress blogs that haven't done major upgrades in years.
codegeek 5y ago
If added as a security patch, lot of websites will auto update.
- spockz 5y ago
  I’m not sure whether that would be wise to do for WP. It will show that WP can and is willing to basically push any update to sites running WP just to further a cause of the company. Mweh if it doesn’t break anything. But terrible if it breaks something.
  - withinboredom 5y ago
    It's the WordPress Foundation and the code is driven by a community, not really a company with a chain of command...

codegeek 5y ago

"WordPress is 41% of the web" This blows my mind every time. Even though I know it.

skybrian 5y ago
I don’t know it. Where did you learn it?
- itcrowd 5y ago
  https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_management https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_management 41.1% of websites
  - skybrian 5y ago
    Okay, thanks! It looks like it’s based on the top ten million websites by traffic, but weighted equally. Maybe there are lots of low-traffic WordPress sites?
    - withinboredom 5y ago
      > Maybe there are lots of low-traffic WordPress sites? And many, many more high traffic websites. There's even some Facebook landing pages running WordPress and other many high profile sites[1]. 1: https://wpvip.com/ https://wpvip.com/

gruez 5y ago

>WordPress is 41% of the web By domains or by visits?

redwall_hp 5y ago
As far as I'm aware, it's flawed in the same way as the PHP popularity stat: domains that report it in an HTTP header. I don't know about you, but I don't put a header advertising that I built a site with Python and Flask or whatever.
- neolog 5y ago
  I guess those go in the "None" bucket, so I think they are counted. https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_management https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_management

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

Well, FLoC is implemented on Chrome, you don't disable it, you opt out with a Header. So if Googles find that too many people uses the header, they can just decide to ignore it from now on. Who is going to prevent them to do that ?

ahartmetz 5y ago
Possibly GDPR? As an explicit no-consent to tracking? Not rhethorical questions, I know too little about the details.
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  When you use Chrome for the first time, it makes you accept its ToS which tells you they are going to track you.
  - cseleborg 5y ago
    IANAL, but my understanding is that this is not in line with GDPR. You are not allowed to force the customer into tracking, which effectively happens in the scenario you describe since the user can't use the browser without accepting the ToS. Also, you have to be quite explicit: simply burying tracking in 52 pages of unrelated legalese is not compliant with GDPR. Someone please chime in if I'm wrong here. I'm no lawyer but do take these things seriously (I'm trying my best to provide a tracking-free website.)
  - t0mas88 5y ago
    They will lose that case under GDPR, you can't hide the details in ToS and hope the user doesn't see it. You must get informed and freely given consent. Google is violating both, because I can't click "No" and the information is so hidden you can't expect a normal consumer to find it. It will take a few years but they're going to get hit very very hard by EU privacy regulators.
    - BiteCode_dev 5y ago

ognarb 5y ago

My fear is that it will end up exactly like the do not track headers and that at some point Google won't listen to the disable Floc header.

oh_sigh 5y ago
Why is that a problem? If I visit ognarb.com, what right do you have to tell me "You aren't allowed to use that fact for developing a profile about yourself"? You send me a bunch of data, including headers, and I'm more or less free to do with that what I want within the privacy of my own browser. I don't have to listen to any of your headers if I don't want to.

tootie 5y ago

I think that stat is more like 41% of servers, not 41% of traffic.

nightpool 5y ago

FLoC is designed to be opt-in, so uh...... no? Currently, for A/B testing, FLoC is automatically opting-in 0.5% of sites that serve ads, but that's only for a small testing population, the idea is that FLoC history contribution will be opt-in exclusively. (There's a proposal that you have to contribute to FLoC history calculations to get access to a user's FLoC identifier)