3 ms·

It is not clear to me at all what the overall view is on FLoC. Brave and Vivaldi don't like it, sure, but they already ship with built-in ad blockers so of cou

by jefftk 6y ago

It is not clear to me at all what the overall view is on FLoC. Brave and Vivaldi don't like it, sure, but they already ship with built-in ad blockers so of course they don't. People here who don't like it also seem to be against advertising in any form beyond direct deals between publishers and advertisers for <img src="https://advertiser.example/ad https://advertiser.example/ad">. If there are people who are (a) ok with personalized ads, providing they can be done sufficiently privately and (b) do not like FLoC, then I'd love to read what they have to say! (Still speaking only for myself.)

orangecat 6y ago
People here who don't like it also seem to be against advertising in any form beyond direct deals between publishers and advertisers I doubt many people object to ad networks and real time bidding; it's just that the user's personal information shouldn't be exposed in the process. Yes, that means the only signals you'd get are the current page, and maybe high-level OS/browser/device info. (a) ok with personalized ads, providing they can be done sufficiently privately My opinion, which I think is fairly common around here, is that what you're describing is fundamentally impossible. Much like the incessant government demands for encryption backdoors that don't compromise security.
- jefftk 6y ago
  >> providing they can be done sufficiently privately > what you're describing is fundamentally impossible I guess the question is what you would consider to be sufficiently private? For example, would it be sufficient for the advertiser to be completely unable to distinguish you from a sufficiently large group of people with similar behavior?
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
I mean, the issue is personalized ads. It shouldn't exist, and advertisers would make just as much money without it if it were illegal. Content-based targeting has worked for decades and does work today. Sites have target markets, ads have target markete, connect these and you are serving ads to the right people, without compromising their privacy.
- jefftk 6y ago
  > the issue is personalized ads. It shouldn't exist Why shouldn't personalized ads exist? > advertisers would make just as much money without it if it were illegal It depends very much on the advertiser. Advertisers with broad interest or close matches to specific publication types, sure, but that's not everyone. One way to think of this would be to imagine a world in which advertisers couldn't even choose where their ad appeared -- they would make less money then, without the ability to target contextually, right? There are many valuable transactions that only happen because the right information is given to the right person, and the less well-targeted ads are the more of those you lose. The story is even worse for publishers. There are major kinds of publishing with negligible commercial tie-in. Historically, the expense of producing a newspaper or magazine meant that you were never holding a single article, and it could be treated essentially as one unit for advertising purposes. But now it is very common for articles to be shared in isolation, which means this cross-subsidy disappears.

by jefftk 6y ago

orangecat 6y ago

People here who don't like it also seem to be against advertising in any form beyond direct deals between publishers and advertisers I doubt many people object to ad networks and real time bidding; it's just that the user's personal information shouldn't be exposed in the process. Yes, that means the only signals you'd get are the current page, and maybe high-level OS/browser/device info. (a) ok with personalized ads, providing they can be done sufficiently privately My opinion, which I think is fairly common around here, is that what you're describing is fundamentally impossible. Much like the incessant government demands for encryption backdoors that don't compromise security.

jefftk 6y ago
>> providing they can be done sufficiently privately > what you're describing is fundamentally impossible I guess the question is what you would consider to be sufficiently private? For example, would it be sufficient for the advertiser to be completely unable to distinguish you from a sufficiently large group of people with similar behavior?

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

I mean, the issue is personalized ads. It shouldn't exist, and advertisers would make just as much money without it if it were illegal. Content-based targeting has worked for decades and does work today. Sites have target markets, ads have target markete, connect these and you are serving ads to the right people, without compromising their privacy.

jefftk 6y ago
> the issue is personalized ads. It shouldn't exist Why shouldn't personalized ads exist? > advertisers would make just as much money without it if it were illegal It depends very much on the advertiser. Advertisers with broad interest or close matches to specific publication types, sure, but that's not everyone. One way to think of this would be to imagine a world in which advertisers couldn't even choose where their ad appeared -- they would make less money then, without the ability to target contextually, right? There are many valuable transactions that only happen because the right information is given to the right person, and the less well-targeted ads are the more of those you lose. The story is even worse for publishers. There are major kinds of publishing with negligible commercial tie-in. Historically, the expense of producing a newspaper or magazine meant that you were never holding a single article, and it could be treated essentially as one unit for advertising purposes. But now it is very common for articles to be shared in isolation, which means this cross-subsidy disappears.