Technology

37696 readers

175 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Google U-turn over long-running plan to ditch cookies - BBC News (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It was never about privacy, they just wanted to monopolize the tracking market by making it so only the company that owns the browser you're running can track you. They called it FLoC at one point, but I think they rebranded it a few times since.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It's not sbout monopolies, it's about survival of Google's core business model.

All other browsers whose businesses are based on selling ads, face the same risk. They're ALL between a rock and a hard place:

On one side, the EU and other countries want to push privacy laws that protect their citizens from getting casually spied on by foreign entities
On the other, Google's core business model relies on spying on users and reselling the use of that data to the highest bidder... many of them being foreign entities to the targetted people

If both Google/browsers/Ad sellers, and Ad purchasers, don't come up with something that is tracking, but cuacks like privacy, the whole Ad ecosystem is at risk.

FLoC is an attempt at compromise, by having an intermediary (the browser) who gathers full tracking data, but only sells a "reasonably anonymized" version.

Of course Ad purchasers see that as an inferior product, so they aren't keen to jump onto it... but if they all don't get something like that going on, then everyone's going to get shut down, with Google standing to lose the most.

From the end user's perspective, their failure would be slightly better, but otherwise worse than the current state of things:

Less tracking on sites that didn't rely on it in the first place
More paywalls on sites that lose Ad revenue
More sites asking people to enable full tracking in order to access their content

IMHO, stuff like FLoC would be a better solution.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

While it is true that the ad business model is changing as you describe, Google's strategy with respect to it is also absolutely about monopolizing the ad market.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

How I see it is that FLoC would have meant that instead of a competitive surveillance market that should not exist, we would have had a monopolized surveillance market that should not exist. IDK which is worse TBH.

FLoC was the first, pre-enshittification iteration. It would have got worse. It will get worse.