65 ms·

This is exactly what I thought. Google is using this to establish their already-majority share of the advertising market intoa monopoly by controlling the brows

This is exactly what I thought. Google is using this to establish their already-majority share of the advertising market intoa monopoly by controlling the browser. Using privacy laws as an excuse and doing just the minimum to skirt those laws (complying with the letter but not the spirit of those) I think this should be addressed with stronger privacy laws, but Google is capable of moving much faster than the EU government.

refulgentis 6y ago
FLoC, much like AMP, was an honest and earnest try to extend the same benefits of Apple's closed ecosystem to actors outside it. Google is trapped between either not getting rid of 3p cookies and pissing us off, or trying something like FLoC, which I'm still a little surprised backfired. The only option they're left is to copy Apple's business model, exactly
- cma 6y ago
  Why not make it opt in?
- sircastor 6y ago
  This implies (as the article states) that we’re bound to accept whatever Google’s alternative solution is to their own problem. We as consumers and users are free to our own third preference: “I don’t want _any_ tracking”. That’s why it backfired. The effort may have been in earnest, but it’s just another expression of Google’s bravado. The pain they’re facing is that people don’t want to be tracked, and tracking/cohorts are the only edge that Google has. Without that they’re must another advertising wholesaler.
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  They should really make an effort to support tracking-less ads instead. Context is often enough. Many websites want this, advertisers are fine with it. Users definitely want it. They have some trackingless ad options but they don't support any kind of HTML5 as far as I've heard.
ehsankia 6y ago
Hmm, this sounds like the opposite. FLoC actually gives any ad-tech company access to the same cohort information. If FLoC does not happen and cookies are banned, that would be the death of smaller ad-tech companies. I assume that's what the parent comment menat?
- GekkePrutser 6y ago
  But Google is the one that controls the algorithms and the browser. They can steer it towards their interests. They will be the gatekeeper to the tech the whole industry relies on. Also, adtech just needs to take a step down to less tracking and targeting. They just don't get it. This would be an ideal time for smaller adtech companies to introduce ethical advertising with no tracking at all.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    > controls the algorithms I'm not sure what about the algorithm can benefit them, they're just segmenting the population into cohorts, and again everyone has access to the exact same cohorts as Google does. > gatekeeper to the tech Won't the algorithm live in chromium and be open source? > no tracking at all People keep throwing that around but I honestly don't see how this works. All this does is benefit large companies like Coca Cola that blanket advertise to everyone, and screw over every small business who have niche specific demographic. I have a friend who has a bicycle gear local shop, and he advertises specifically to local people who are into biking. There is no way in hell that non-targeted advertising could work for him. The majority of small products are made for a very niche demographic, so you're saying all of those should stop advertising entirely, except maybe on search results which have a query.
    - GekkePrutser 6y ago
      > Won't the algorithm live in chromium and be open source? Of course, but Google decides what goes into Chrome. Chromium itself is a fringe phenomenon. > I have a friend who has a bicycle gear local shop, and he advertises specifically to local people who are into biking. There is no way in hell that non-targeted advertising could work for him. The majority of small products are made for a very niche demographic, so you're saying all of those should stop advertising entirely, except maybe on search results which have a query. He could advertise at a local news website, or a biking forum in the section for your town. Or sponsor a local initiative. Just like he probably did before ad tracking was pervasive. That way the money will also go straight to local people who can use it rather than dropping a large precentage in Google's (and other adtech) bucket. It's not like this is actually a choice. Tracked advertising is going away one way or another. 47% of people are already using adblockers. https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/04/global-ad-blocking-behaviors-infographic.html https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/04/global-ad-bl... (and that info is from 2019). Also, here in Europe it's got to be an opt-in mechanism now by law and there aren't many people who opt in. If the industry doesn't quickly adapt there will be nobody left to view their ads :) And tracking is only one reason people block ads. A lot of people will be getting used to clean uncluttered websites right now and will find it hard to go back even when the original reason they installed the blocker has been removed.

refulgentis 6y ago

FLoC, much like AMP, was an honest and earnest try to extend the same benefits of Apple's closed ecosystem to actors outside it. Google is trapped between either not getting rid of 3p cookies and pissing us off, or trying something like FLoC, which I'm still a little surprised backfired. The only option they're left is to copy Apple's business model, exactly

cma 6y ago
Why not make it opt in?
sircastor 6y ago
This implies (as the article states) that we’re bound to accept whatever Google’s alternative solution is to their own problem. We as consumers and users are free to our own third preference: “I don’t want _any_ tracking”. That’s why it backfired. The effort may have been in earnest, but it’s just another expression of Google’s bravado. The pain they’re facing is that people don’t want to be tracked, and tracking/cohorts are the only edge that Google has. Without that they’re must another advertising wholesaler.
GekkePrutser 6y ago
They should really make an effort to support tracking-less ads instead. Context is often enough. Many websites want this, advertisers are fine with it. Users definitely want it. They have some trackingless ad options but they don't support any kind of HTML5 as far as I've heard.

ehsankia 6y ago

Hmm, this sounds like the opposite. FLoC actually gives any ad-tech company access to the same cohort information. If FLoC does not happen and cookies are banned, that would be the death of smaller ad-tech companies. I assume that's what the parent comment menat?

GekkePrutser 6y ago
But Google is the one that controls the algorithms and the browser. They can steer it towards their interests. They will be the gatekeeper to the tech the whole industry relies on. Also, adtech just needs to take a step down to less tracking and targeting. They just don't get it. This would be an ideal time for smaller adtech companies to introduce ethical advertising with no tracking at all.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  > controls the algorithms I'm not sure what about the algorithm can benefit them, they're just segmenting the population into cohorts, and again everyone has access to the exact same cohorts as Google does. > gatekeeper to the tech Won't the algorithm live in chromium and be open source? > no tracking at all People keep throwing that around but I honestly don't see how this works. All this does is benefit large companies like Coca Cola that blanket advertise to everyone, and screw over every small business who have niche specific demographic. I have a friend who has a bicycle gear local shop, and he advertises specifically to local people who are into biking. There is no way in hell that non-targeted advertising could work for him. The majority of small products are made for a very niche demographic, so you're saying all of those should stop advertising entirely, except maybe on search results which have a query.
  - GekkePrutser 6y ago
    > Won't the algorithm live in chromium and be open source? Of course, but Google decides what goes into Chrome. Chromium itself is a fringe phenomenon. > I have a friend who has a bicycle gear local shop, and he advertises specifically to local people who are into biking. There is no way in hell that non-targeted advertising could work for him. The majority of small products are made for a very niche demographic, so you're saying all of those should stop advertising entirely, except maybe on search results which have a query. He could advertise at a local news website, or a biking forum in the section for your town. Or sponsor a local initiative. Just like he probably did before ad tracking was pervasive. That way the money will also go straight to local people who can use it rather than dropping a large precentage in Google's (and other adtech) bucket. It's not like this is actually a choice. Tracked advertising is going away one way or another. 47% of people are already using adblockers. https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/04/global-ad-blocking-behaviors-infographic.html https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2019/04/global-ad-bl... (and that info is from 2019). Also, here in Europe it's got to be an opt-in mechanism now by law and there aren't many people who opt in. If the industry doesn't quickly adapt there will be nobody left to view their ads :) And tracking is only one reason people block ads. A lot of people will be getting used to clean uncluttered websites right now and will find it hard to go back even when the original reason they installed the blocker has been removed.