4 ms·

It's really a genius level move by Google here. Get rid of the cookie, implement your own solution, make it seem somewhat unique and rely on other data to ident

It's really a genius level move by Google here. Get rid of the cookie, implement your own solution, make it seem somewhat unique and rely on other data to identify users and claim impunity since it's nothing to do with them. So how about this, Google must not, and cannot implement FLOC without it being a cross-browser standard; that is to say if anyone of Microsoft, Apple or Mozilla veto FLOC, it's dead. This is how standards are supposed to work. Google should not be given the power to make a thing (like AMP) and just force it upon everyone. We MUST start regulating Google's every product development, I'd rather it get held up for a year in court before it sees the light of day.

dmitriid 5y ago
> So how about this, Google must not, and cannot implement FLOC without it being a cross-browser standard; that is to say if anyone of Microsoft, Apple or Mozilla veto FLOC, it's dead. Google couldn't care less about "cross-browser standards". They've been ramming Google-designed and Google-authored "standards" through standards bodies for years now, and increasingly disregard any objections from other browser implementors. And, sadly, there are only two browser implementors left that have any relevance: Safari and Firefox.
bingidingi 5y ago
Google has zero incentive to adhere to any standards because they already own the majority of the browser market. The fact that Google is an ad provider and a browser vendor and trying to implement a browser-level tracking API is very alarming. As mentioned in the Mozilla analysis, Google is also saying that they're who determines which sites are considered "protected" categories... which is the cherry on top of all of this nonsense. I'd really like to understand how someone working on this thinks that it improves the web for everyone... not just Google.
jefftk 5y ago
> Google must not, and cannot implement FLOC without it being a cross-browser standard; that is to say if anyone of Microsoft, Apple or Mozilla veto FLOC, it's dead. This is how standards are supposed to work. This isn't how internet standards work, or the how they have ever worked. Take the development of HTTP/2: [2009] Google researches how HTTP could be improved and develops SPDY: https://blog.chromium.org/2009/11/2x-faster-web.html https://blog.chromium.org/2009/11/2x-faster-web.html https://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper https://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper [2010] Chrome implements SPDY, and they start gathering real world performance data. [2011] Several rounds of iteration to make it faster, more reliable, and fix bugs. [2012] Major websites built out support, Firefox adds support, the process of standardizing it with the IETF begins: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-... [2013] More and more sites build support, CDNs enable it by default [2014] Safari adds support. [2015] Standardized as HTTP/2: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7540 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7540 Standardization follows cross browser support, and cross browser support follows single browser support. This is the path FLoC is following: it's currently incubated under the WICG (https://github.com/WICG/floc https://github.com/WICG/floc) and Chrome is developing it. Other browsers are paying attention and evaluating: that's what this Mozilla article is about. If at some point we get to a version that other browsers are happy with and choose to implement, then it could potentially be standardized. (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)

dmitriid 5y ago

> So how about this, Google must not, and cannot implement FLOC without it being a cross-browser standard; that is to say if anyone of Microsoft, Apple or Mozilla veto FLOC, it's dead. Google couldn't care less about "cross-browser standards". They've been ramming Google-designed and Google-authored "standards" through standards bodies for years now, and increasingly disregard any objections from other browser implementors. And, sadly, there are only two browser implementors left that have any relevance: Safari and Firefox.

bingidingi 5y ago

Google has zero incentive to adhere to any standards because they already own the majority of the browser market. The fact that Google is an ad provider and a browser vendor and trying to implement a browser-level tracking API is very alarming. As mentioned in the Mozilla analysis, Google is also saying that they're who determines which sites are considered "protected" categories... which is the cherry on top of all of this nonsense. I'd really like to understand how someone working on this thinks that it improves the web for everyone... not just Google.

jefftk 5y ago

> Google must not, and cannot implement FLOC without it being a cross-browser standard; that is to say if anyone of Microsoft, Apple or Mozilla veto FLOC, it's dead. This is how standards are supposed to work. This isn't how internet standards work, or the how they have ever worked. Take the development of HTTP/2: [2009] Google researches how HTTP could be improved and develops SPDY: https://blog.chromium.org/2009/11/2x-faster-web.html https://blog.chromium.org/2009/11/2x-faster-web.html https://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper https://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-whitepaper [2010] Chrome implements SPDY, and they start gathering real world performance data. [2011] Several rounds of iteration to make it faster, more reliable, and fix bugs. [2012] Major websites built out support, Firefox adds support, the process of standardizing it with the IETF begins: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-... [2013] More and more sites build support, CDNs enable it by default [2014] Safari adds support. [2015] Standardized as HTTP/2: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7540 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7540 Standardization follows cross browser support, and cross browser support follows single browser support. This is the path FLoC is following: it's currently incubated under the WICG (https://github.com/WICG/floc https://github.com/WICG/floc) and Chrome is developing it. Other browsers are paying attention and evaluating: that's what this Mozilla article is about. If at some point we get to a version that other browsers are happy with and choose to implement, then it could potentially be standardized. (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)