> 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

> 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)