Google's FLoC tracking is not the only cookie-tracking alternative being developed, and some might argue that there should be less tracking and more privacy as the web matures.
Unified Identifier 2.0 (UID2) is one such proposal which uses email. In one sense, there are strong arguments for alternatives to Google's system, which is Chrome-based, and falls under the Google umbrella. Either way, these cookie alternatives will still track and present privacy concerns. The key for me will be the controllability. At the moment, Google is making FLoC look all cuddly and warm, just like a puppy, but it's worth looking out for the pitfalls as this all moves inexorably forward.
There is a strong push against these alternative tracking methods, and rightly so. A cookie is a single tracking token. You can remove it from your browser or use another browser and you are basically cleaned. But using browser history as in FLoC, or email addresses which are fixed personal assets for most internet users is a whole different story. You can't just delete your last week's browser history to avoid tracking. Or let all Internet users use throw-away email addresses.
What it shows is that there is a massive amount of money involved. The business model of both Google and Facebook is knowing what to sell to whom. And a tracking-free world throttles their main money supply line.
engine
11:33 am on Apr 13, 2021 (gmt 0)
I agree, it's BIG money, and now that the cookie tracking is becoming less effective, Google has so much more to lose. Creating it's own system just seems wrong, imho. It's quite possible that when FLoC is established and Google has control it'll move it to Open Source in a way to protect itself from further criticism and potential antitrust action.
I really must get a new tin foil hat!
londrum
12:06 pm on Apr 13, 2021 (gmt 0)
if google just let all of this excessive personalisation go it might actually do them a favour. seeing results based solely on your search query, and not the same old sites from your past history, and contextual ads as well - instead of ads you've been seeing for weeks and weeks on end - is what a lot of people want.
JorgeV
1:22 pm on Apr 13, 2021 (gmt 0)
Hello,
is what a lot of people want
But advertisers want ROI. This is the advertises which are pushing on having their ads displayed only to really-real potential buyers/subscribers/etc...
engine
8:21 am on Apr 14, 2021 (gmt 0)
But advertisers want ROI.
Of course, and they want to do it one-to-one if they could, but, really, that isn't going to sit well with the privacy lobby.
The compromise Google is making is turning it into cohorts.
On a purely personal point of view, the worst thing is remarketing, but for others it may make them choose to purchase.
iamlost
3:58 pm on Jun 15, 2021 (gmt 0)
So... a question for you all:
How many of you have - or plan to - request Google NOT include Chrome browser visits to your website in their FLoC (Federated Learning of Cohorts) potential (aka in ‘pilot phase’) third party cookie replacement adtech. Note: current G recommended method being an opt-out http response header.
Permissions-Policy: interest-cohort=()
Note: exactly how varies by web server; check documentation.
I did. But the reason for asking is that sites as disparate as GitHub and The Guardian have... and now Amazon properties...
Corollary question: how many think that Google will cancel FLoC and trial something else before their self imposed no more third party cookie deadline of next year? What might be hiding behind FLoC?
tangor
12:08 am on Jun 16, 2021 (gmt 0)
Everything. G has been quite the Wizard of Oz in saying (misdirecting) one thing and doing something completely different.
There's more that AIN'T BEING SAID and one can only hope that the blockers and script killers out there are on top of things.
(@engine, nothing wrong with the old tin foil hat, it's working perfectly)
