5 ms·
It doesn't differ too much in a meaningful way. Most likely it will end up the same way, pretty much all other browsers will either 1. Not implement it at all
by gkbrk 5y ago
It doesn't differ too much in a meaningful way. Most likely it will end up the same way, pretty much all other browsers will either
1. Not implement it at all and depend on web developers having heard of error handling or feature detection
2. Implement it as a stub and return no data
3. Implement it to return random / meaningless data.
- jjulius 5y agoSo I guess where my brain is going with this is... If Google is aware that no other browsers were going to implement FLoC and that's why they're putting the kibosh on it, why would their alternative then be just another system that those same browsers wouldn't implement? Maybe this is more of a rhetorical question, since others in this thread have suggested all this amounts to is a name change? I dunno, this all just seems so... dumb.
- GekkePrutser 5y agoI think the answer to this is legislation. Tracking cookies are really frowned upon in the EU and more legislation is incoming. I think Google is protecting their business model of targeted ads and perhaps also as a reason to lobby for tracking ("look, we tried to propose alternatives but nobody adopted it so we need tracking"). I personally don't like targeted ads even if I am anonymous so I'm not happy with the changes still. If there's an option for generic ads I'll always choose it.