5 ms·

FLoC is inherently anti-user, it serves literally no purpose other than to support tracking, while breaking all current anti-tracking tech by mandating its user

by olliej 5y ago

FLoC is inherently anti-user, it serves literally no purpose other than to support tracking, while breaking all current anti-tracking tech by mandating its user across domains (a nice solid break of Same Origin policy). That it came from google is hardly surprising, as they are hell bent on stealing every bit of information they can from everyone, whether or not that person has a relationship with them, let alone consented to the abuse. I would be stunned if FLoC lasted more than a few months in the real world before google just started using it as an additional source of entropy to spy on people across domains.

google234123 5y ago
Removing effective ads from the internet would be even more anti user. I dont think most people will be happy when everything is paywalled effectively.
- olliej 5y ago
  The abusive tracking hasn't made ads more effective. I mean it means advertisers spend more paying for bigger and noisier ads sure, but that's also anti-user. There's also nothing stopping ads from being relevant, when google started AdWords (when "don't be evil" was still a thing) you got useful ads based on what you were actually looking at. Now you getting nothing but repeat ads for something you searched for last week. that relevant ads requires spying and abuse is nonsense, and google's original destruction of the ad tech industry demonstrated that non-spying ads that were based on page content were more than effective enough. Of course your uid implies that at best you're a pro-google fan, if not an actual employee, so I don't see me convincing you of anything.
- imiric 5y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. Paywalls aren't the only alternative to ads. If companies can come up with user-respecting business models, I'd be happy to support them. If their business is worth supporting.
  - gerash 5y ago
    What is this alternative? Something that a publisher can use to fund itself that's neither paywall nor advertisement. I'm genuinely curious.
    - imiric 5y ago
      The fact it doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't exist. The only reason ads are so prevalent is because they're the easiest and most lucrative way to monetize, at the expense of the user. FWIW I think the Brave Browser model is a step in the right direction, even though Brave Inc. has made some missteps along the way. Give the user the choice of which services they want to support, and make that process as frictionless as possible. If the tech giants had incentives to come up with a user-friendly business model, I'm sure those genius minds would think of something. Alas, the status quo benefits their shareholders and they have no reason to change. FLoC is just marketing fluff to paint their predatory practices in a better light, not an indication that they actually care about their users. Their #1 priority is still profit from advertisers.
      - gerash 5y ago
        You didn't answer the question. How about this: you have a business that sells stuff online and but then a buyer suddenly refuses to give you money in return and says "I don't like money as it has corrupting power. I prefer an alternative means of compensation but can't think of any but it doesn't mean it cannot exist. Since you have a profitable business it's on you to find the alternative payment that I like". The Brave model is innovative but I don't understand it. They're trying to pay the consumer BAT tokens for consuming. Isn't the consumer the one that needs to pay to consume?
        Nicksil 5y ago
        >How about this: you have a business that sells stuff online and but then a buyer suddenly refuses to give you money in return and says "I don't like money as it has corrupting power. I prefer an alternative means of compensation but can't think of any but it doesn't mean it cannot exist. Since you have a profitable business it's on you to find the alternative payment that I like". I don't think I understand your complete train of thought here, but... >then a buyer suddenly refuses to give you money in return [...] In return? In this scenario does this customer receive your product before paying for it? If the customer refuses to pay for a thing you sell, they simply do not get that thing.

by olliej 5y ago

google234123 5y ago

Removing effective ads from the internet would be even more anti user. I dont think most people will be happy when everything is paywalled effectively.

olliej 5y ago
The abusive tracking hasn't made ads more effective. I mean it means advertisers spend more paying for bigger and noisier ads sure, but that's also anti-user. There's also nothing stopping ads from being relevant, when google started AdWords (when "don't be evil" was still a thing) you got useful ads based on what you were actually looking at. Now you getting nothing but repeat ads for something you searched for last week. that relevant ads requires spying and abuse is nonsense, and google's original destruction of the ad tech industry demonstrated that non-spying ads that were based on page content were more than effective enough. Of course your uid implies that at best you're a pro-google fan, if not an actual employee, so I don't see me convincing you of anything.
imiric 5y ago
That's a false dichotomy. Paywalls aren't the only alternative to ads. If companies can come up with user-respecting business models, I'd be happy to support them. If their business is worth supporting.
- gerash 5y ago
  What is this alternative? Something that a publisher can use to fund itself that's neither paywall nor advertisement. I'm genuinely curious.
  - imiric 5y ago
    The fact it doesn't exist doesn't mean it can't exist. The only reason ads are so prevalent is because they're the easiest and most lucrative way to monetize, at the expense of the user. FWIW I think the Brave Browser model is a step in the right direction, even though Brave Inc. has made some missteps along the way. Give the user the choice of which services they want to support, and make that process as frictionless as possible. If the tech giants had incentives to come up with a user-friendly business model, I'm sure those genius minds would think of something. Alas, the status quo benefits their shareholders and they have no reason to change. FLoC is just marketing fluff to paint their predatory practices in a better light, not an indication that they actually care about their users. Their #1 priority is still profit from advertisers.
    - gerash 5y ago
      You didn't answer the question. How about this: you have a business that sells stuff online and but then a buyer suddenly refuses to give you money in return and says "I don't like money as it has corrupting power. I prefer an alternative means of compensation but can't think of any but it doesn't mean it cannot exist. Since you have a profitable business it's on you to find the alternative payment that I like". The Brave model is innovative but I don't understand it. They're trying to pay the consumer BAT tokens for consuming. Isn't the consumer the one that needs to pay to consume?
      - Nicksil 5y ago
        >How about this: you have a business that sells stuff online and but then a buyer suddenly refuses to give you money in return and says "I don't like money as it has corrupting power. I prefer an alternative means of compensation but can't think of any but it doesn't mean it cannot exist. Since you have a profitable business it's on you to find the alternative payment that I like". I don't think I understand your complete train of thought here, but... >then a buyer suddenly refuses to give you money in return [...] In return? In this scenario does this customer receive your product before paying for it? If the customer refuses to pay for a thing you sell, they simply do not get that thing.