6 ms·

I am not sure if this change is really a bad thing. I don't really know, how the current wild west of online ads works and who stores which data about users.

by TekMol 3y ago

I am not sure if this change is really a bad thing. I don't really know, how the current wild west of online ads works and who stores which data about users. But if Google throws their weight behind the idea that a common set of informations is used, which is completely under the control of the user, easily accessible and changeable, maybe that is a good thing? Maybe no more "header bidding" which sends the users data to a gazillion companies? I guess it just needs a browser API call to see what data is stored in your browser? So it is easy to check? It might also be leveling the playing field. So small websites can get ad revenues similar to big websites. Currently, small websites get something like 1/100th per pageview of what big websites get. If "the user is interested in toasters" is all that is needed to raise ad revenue, maybe that is fresh air to finance the indie web.

Drakim 3y ago
The issue is that no way companies will give up the old tracking methods, they are just gonna sandwich together the old with the new and get the sum of the two.
- TekMol 3y ago
  Sites that get really big, usually do "give up" the old way of sending out the users data to a gazillion of advertisers. Because they have the inhouse resources to segment their users: https://www.reddit.com/ads.txt https://www.reddit.com/ads.txt Meta, Google, Reddit, Twitter etc won't send out your request data to show you ads. But unless you are a giant, it is not feasible and sites resort to send out request data to countless data brokers to find out what users are interested in: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ads.txt https://www.washingtonpost.com/ads.txt If the users interest is available via the browser, that would enable smaller sites to do what larger sites do. Show toaster ads to users interested in toasters without the data brokers being involved.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > If the users interest is available via the browser, that would enable smaller sites to do what larger sites do. And how is that a good thing? The problem is the data collection itself. That larger sites don't directly sell or share the data they collect is better than if they did, but it certainly doesn't make everything OK. The tracking is still happening.
tyingq 3y ago
Google's pretty fond of privacy things that "hurt advertisers", but hurt all advertisers other than Google harder than they hurt Google.
- TekMol 3y ago
  But this change levels the playing field, doesn't it? Previously only Google and other big data brokers could figure out that a visitor who looks at a jokes site is interested in toasters. Now every site can.
  - tyingq 3y ago
    That's the carrot. The stick is it's the first step in a path to neuter cookies. Which hurts all the advertisers, but Google the least.
    - TekMol 3y ago
      hurts all the advertisers, but Google the least How so?
      - tyingq 3y ago
        Owning the most popular browser, most popular search engine, most popular email platform, most popular ad platform, most popular video platform, etc. They don't need 3rd party cookies. They can mostly reconstruct what was lost. It takes away more information from everyone else. Widens the gap despite slightly denting what Google can see.
        insanitybit 3y ago
        But Google is late to the "remove 3rd party cookies" game. It's not like that was their idea.
        amadeuspagel 3y ago
grishka 3y ago
Browsers simply don't need to cater to the advertising industry. It's extremely unfortunate that the world's most popular browser and the world's most popular mobile OS are both owned by the world's largest online advertising company. It's also extremely unfortunate that this kind of concentration of power is legal.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  Catering in what sense? Giving more power to advertisers? Or recognizing that its how the platform is used? By his description it sounds more like the latter.
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    Browsers are referred to as user agents. They act in favor of users.
    - nonethewiser 3y ago
      This comment appears completely unrelated to mine. I understand you think your point needed emphasis but why in response to my question? They are currently called user agents, right? And arent they currently utilized by advertisers? Does this change give more power to users, advertisers, both? Its an honest question.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  They actually do: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-googles-privacy-sandbox-browser-changes https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-googles-priv...
- bad_user 3y ago
  A big problem that the web has is that it has no standard for micro-transactions. As such, the web is powered by ads or subscriptions. That's a fact. Of course, we can talk about the "indie web", the one in which enthusiasts often get overworked without pay, and then have to provide support for free to entitled users, while begging for donations to keep the servers alive (e.g., Mastodon, etc). But IMO that's not sustainable. Servers, electricity, people’s time aren't free. If ads go away, large portions of the web will be locked behind paywalls. You could say that's not your problem, however, you're a privileged individual that can probably afford to pay for YouTube or whatever else you need, whereas the poor can't afford it. Ads going away also means that your average online publication can only survive if subsidized by a bigger player, like Facebook. Especially smaller newspapers, as there is only one NY Times and subscriptions fatigue is real. People that want to ban advertisements are basically the NIMBYs of the online world. Fact of the matter is that absolutely all browsers are funded directly by ads, including Safari and Firefox (both funded by Google actually). Brave Software had the audacity to speak against the Topics API, while having plans to also do client-side targeting, but in a way that keeps the results under Brave's lock (data for me but not for thee). Vivaldi spoke against the Topics API while defaulting to Bing and encouraging users to not block ads from their partners. I vaguely remembered that even Firefox flirted with client-side ads in the new-tab page. The Internet needs valid business models. Wanting ads to go away is like wanting capitalism to go away. And the people proposing it have no better solutions than having the government subsidize it all or just letting it crash and burn.
fluidcruft 3y ago
Can non-google use the flock? I really haven't bothered learn anything about how this works but I had the impression Google does some sort of semantic integration on its end that adds meaning to the tracking numbers. Basically, I would be pretty upset if my browser is disclosing interests in plain text to websites I visit. I think Google's idea is that they play bouncer over the semantics. So I'm skeptical the method can be used by non-Googles. I also suspect Google will break things often enough that a competitor ad network couldn't really keep up. But that's just my very uninformed read of whatever this all actually is. Understanding this whole thing had been on the back burner. I am open to something clever (and some things I have read long ago about it hint at clever) and have a similar position you do, but everything I have encountered about this is either super technical or sky-is-falling FUD or flowery PR bullshit. The pop-up's vague language and smooth-brained cheerful explanations just made me take the easy route of turning everything off in the privacy settings and uninstalling Chrome. I usually use Firefox anyway and all the work machines have Edge, so who needs it. "I don't know WTF this is and don't have time to figure it out. I turned the settings off in preferences and uninstalled Chrome." is how I'm answering questions from friends and family.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  Yes. Other browsers can implement FLoC. Any website can also use the browse APIs for retrieving interests.
  - raudette 3y ago
    The 2nd half of this is not correct - only domains whitelisted by Google can use the browse APIs in Chrome. You need to apply to Google with your business's DUNS number to get your domain whitelisted for you website to able to call the Chrome Privacy Sandbox APIs. Here is the process to apply: https://github.com/privacysandbox/attestation/blob/main/how-to-enroll.md https://github.com/privacysandbox/attestation/blob/main/how-... It's the only browser API I can think of where Google approves, rather than the user (eg: normally, the user is prompted when a website wants to use the browser's webcam or location APIs - in this case, Google handles the approval for the user!)
contravariant 3y ago
Is it completely under control of the user? Do you get to choose the list of topics to send to websites?
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  My interest list: Ad/content blockers /End
insanitybit 3y ago
Thanks, I think people are not really digging into the implications here. A lot of that is because, I suspect, that advertising is taken as being evil as an axiom. Ads are evil, therefor anything related to ads is evil. Or, for some, ads that are targeted are evil. It feels religious when I talk to some people - I have spoken with many who genuinely believe that an ad is an inherently bad thing. They resent someone advertising to them in all forms, under all circumstances. But ads are also a large part of how the internet works. I wrote hundreds of blog posts using wordpress.com for free, and it's because they would put an ad on the site. So if we step back and ask "how do we allow for targeted advertising while also ensuring user privacy", I think we end up with something like this. I don't want advertisers to know things like my name, my usernames, the sites I visit, etc. I am ok with advertisers getting some opaque token with tags like "Programmer, American, Energy Drinks" or whatever. Especially since I can control this in my settings. Finding a helpful line between helping the right ads get to the right people, thus ensuring the web continues to be free, and also making sure that you're not one data breach away from having your entire persona exposed, seems like a reasonable path forward.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  No advertiser needs to know anything about me. They’re not a useful function of society and indeed are deceptive, harmful, and dangerous. Advertising needs to be put on a short leash with a choke collar until we can kill it.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    > No advertiser needs to know anything about me. They do if they want to deliver ads that are relevant. > Advertising needs to be put on a short leash with a choke collar until we can kill it. Kinda proving my point. Nothing in your post actually substantiates why advertising is inherently bad, you just state it as if it's true.
    - Ruthalas 3y ago
      "They do if they want to deliver ads that are relevant." I don't have any interest in them doing so, so this seems to work out. I'm not interested in being manipulated, nor providing information about myself to make that manipulation more effective.

by TekMol 3y ago

Drakim 3y ago

The issue is that no way companies will give up the old tracking methods, they are just gonna sandwich together the old with the new and get the sum of the two.

TekMol 3y ago
Sites that get really big, usually do "give up" the old way of sending out the users data to a gazillion of advertisers. Because they have the inhouse resources to segment their users: https://www.reddit.com/ads.txt https://www.reddit.com/ads.txt Meta, Google, Reddit, Twitter etc won't send out your request data to show you ads. But unless you are a giant, it is not feasible and sites resort to send out request data to countless data brokers to find out what users are interested in: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ads.txt https://www.washingtonpost.com/ads.txt If the users interest is available via the browser, that would enable smaller sites to do what larger sites do. Show toaster ads to users interested in toasters without the data brokers being involved.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > If the users interest is available via the browser, that would enable smaller sites to do what larger sites do. And how is that a good thing? The problem is the data collection itself. That larger sites don't directly sell or share the data they collect is better than if they did, but it certainly doesn't make everything OK. The tracking is still happening.

tyingq 3y ago

Google's pretty fond of privacy things that "hurt advertisers", but hurt all advertisers other than Google harder than they hurt Google.

TekMol 3y ago
But this change levels the playing field, doesn't it? Previously only Google and other big data brokers could figure out that a visitor who looks at a jokes site is interested in toasters. Now every site can.
- tyingq 3y ago
  That's the carrot. The stick is it's the first step in a path to neuter cookies. Which hurts all the advertisers, but Google the least.
  - TekMol 3y ago
    hurts all the advertisers, but Google the least How so?
    - tyingq 3y ago
      Owning the most popular browser, most popular search engine, most popular email platform, most popular ad platform, most popular video platform, etc. They don't need 3rd party cookies. They can mostly reconstruct what was lost. It takes away more information from everyone else. Widens the gap despite slightly denting what Google can see.
      - insanitybit 3y ago
        But Google is late to the "remove 3rd party cookies" game. It's not like that was their idea.
        amadeuspagel 3y ago

grishka 3y ago

Browsers simply don't need to cater to the advertising industry. It's extremely unfortunate that the world's most popular browser and the world's most popular mobile OS are both owned by the world's largest online advertising company. It's also extremely unfortunate that this kind of concentration of power is legal.

nonethewiser 3y ago
Catering in what sense? Giving more power to advertisers? Or recognizing that its how the platform is used? By his description it sounds more like the latter.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  Browsers are referred to as user agents. They act in favor of users.
  - nonethewiser 3y ago
    This comment appears completely unrelated to mine. I understand you think your point needed emphasis but why in response to my question? They are currently called user agents, right? And arent they currently utilized by advertisers? Does this change give more power to users, advertisers, both? Its an honest question.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
They actually do: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-googles-privacy-sandbox-browser-changes https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-googles-priv...
bad_user 3y ago
A big problem that the web has is that it has no standard for micro-transactions. As such, the web is powered by ads or subscriptions. That's a fact. Of course, we can talk about the "indie web", the one in which enthusiasts often get overworked without pay, and then have to provide support for free to entitled users, while begging for donations to keep the servers alive (e.g., Mastodon, etc). But IMO that's not sustainable. Servers, electricity, people’s time aren't free. If ads go away, large portions of the web will be locked behind paywalls. You could say that's not your problem, however, you're a privileged individual that can probably afford to pay for YouTube or whatever else you need, whereas the poor can't afford it. Ads going away also means that your average online publication can only survive if subsidized by a bigger player, like Facebook. Especially smaller newspapers, as there is only one NY Times and subscriptions fatigue is real. People that want to ban advertisements are basically the NIMBYs of the online world. Fact of the matter is that absolutely all browsers are funded directly by ads, including Safari and Firefox (both funded by Google actually). Brave Software had the audacity to speak against the Topics API, while having plans to also do client-side targeting, but in a way that keeps the results under Brave's lock (data for me but not for thee). Vivaldi spoke against the Topics API while defaulting to Bing and encouraging users to not block ads from their partners. I vaguely remembered that even Firefox flirted with client-side ads in the new-tab page. The Internet needs valid business models. Wanting ads to go away is like wanting capitalism to go away. And the people proposing it have no better solutions than having the government subsidize it all or just letting it crash and burn.

fluidcruft 3y ago

Can non-google use the flock? I really haven't bothered learn anything about how this works but I had the impression Google does some sort of semantic integration on its end that adds meaning to the tracking numbers. Basically, I would be pretty upset if my browser is disclosing interests in plain text to websites I visit. I think Google's idea is that they play bouncer over the semantics. So I'm skeptical the method can be used by non-Googles. I also suspect Google will break things often enough that a competitor ad network couldn't really keep up. But that's just my very uninformed read of whatever this all actually is. Understanding this whole thing had been on the back burner. I am open to something clever (and some things I have read long ago about it hint at clever) and have a similar position you do, but everything I have encountered about this is either super technical or sky-is-falling FUD or flowery PR bullshit. The pop-up's vague language and smooth-brained cheerful explanations just made me take the easy route of turning everything off in the privacy settings and uninstalling Chrome. I usually use Firefox anyway and all the work machines have Edge, so who needs it. "I don't know WTF this is and don't have time to figure it out. I turned the settings off in preferences and uninstalled Chrome." is how I'm answering questions from friends and family.

madeofpalk 3y ago
Yes. Other browsers can implement FLoC. Any website can also use the browse APIs for retrieving interests.
- raudette 3y ago
  The 2nd half of this is not correct - only domains whitelisted by Google can use the browse APIs in Chrome. You need to apply to Google with your business's DUNS number to get your domain whitelisted for you website to able to call the Chrome Privacy Sandbox APIs. Here is the process to apply: https://github.com/privacysandbox/attestation/blob/main/how-to-enroll.md https://github.com/privacysandbox/attestation/blob/main/how-... It's the only browser API I can think of where Google approves, rather than the user (eg: normally, the user is prompted when a website wants to use the browser's webcam or location APIs - in this case, Google handles the approval for the user!)

contravariant 3y ago

Is it completely under control of the user? Do you get to choose the list of topics to send to websites?

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
My interest list: Ad/content blockers /End

insanitybit 3y ago

Thanks, I think people are not really digging into the implications here. A lot of that is because, I suspect, that advertising is taken as being evil as an axiom. Ads are evil, therefor anything related to ads is evil. Or, for some, ads that are targeted are evil. It feels religious when I talk to some people - I have spoken with many who genuinely believe that an ad is an inherently bad thing. They resent someone advertising to them in all forms, under all circumstances. But ads are also a large part of how the internet works. I wrote hundreds of blog posts using wordpress.com for free, and it's because they would put an ad on the site. So if we step back and ask "how do we allow for targeted advertising while also ensuring user privacy", I think we end up with something like this. I don't want advertisers to know things like my name, my usernames, the sites I visit, etc. I am ok with advertisers getting some opaque token with tags like "Programmer, American, Energy Drinks" or whatever. Especially since I can control this in my settings. Finding a helpful line between helping the right ads get to the right people, thus ensuring the web continues to be free, and also making sure that you're not one data breach away from having your entire persona exposed, seems like a reasonable path forward.

nullindividual 3y ago
No advertiser needs to know anything about me. They’re not a useful function of society and indeed are deceptive, harmful, and dangerous. Advertising needs to be put on a short leash with a choke collar until we can kill it.
- insanitybit 3y ago
  > No advertiser needs to know anything about me. They do if they want to deliver ads that are relevant. > Advertising needs to be put on a short leash with a choke collar until we can kill it. Kinda proving my point. Nothing in your post actually substantiates why advertising is inherently bad, you just state it as if it's true.
  - Ruthalas 3y ago
    "They do if they want to deliver ads that are relevant." I don't have any interest in them doing so, so this seems to work out. I'm not interested in being manipulated, nor providing information about myself to make that manipulation more effective.