Google gets its way... or FLoC by another name...

[fatboy]

Likely that FLoC A/B trial was present in Google Chrome only... and hopefully wouldn't have got into the more privacy-orientated chromium-based (Blink-engined) browsers such as Vivaldi and Brave?

Anyhow, FLoC probably no longer exists in current Chrome in any recognisable form? The EFF's supporting 'Am I FLoCed?' article was dated April 2021, since when the blowback FLoC received caused Google to retrench, rethink, relaunch, and resume advance as is the company's oft-repeated methodology for getting what it wants... i.e Google's long-established 'frog-boiling' approach to slowly gaining and now keeping control of both internet standards and thereby control of the massively lucrative online advertising industry.

Thus, FLoC was duly replaced with the slightly different 'Topics API' approach to user data gathering, user profiling, and user profile data auctioning in January 2022. The 'Topics API' is now part of Google's 'Privacy Sandbox' which went 'live' in Chrome 115 from 24th July 2023. No doubt there will be new A/B trials in current Chrome and other compliant Blink-engined browsers to check the frogs are boiling nicely?

Google has got its way again. When 3rd party cookies are phased-out in late 2024 = Google's 'Topics API' will control all access to user profile data = near total domination of online advertising = monopoly position enhanced = vast new goldmine!

Truly concerning and depressing, but not surprising. After this they will probably start ruining YT as well

[daemonspudguy]

As FLoC is not a mandatory feature in Chromium, and most of the non-Google contributors oppose it, no, FLoC will not affect users of Brave or Vivaldi. You still shouldn't use Brave, but avoiding FLoC isn't one of those reasons.

[Blacklab]

New Ghacks article 'Google is the master of fake Privacy features' posted today, Sunday 26Nov23.

Article author Ghacks founder Martin Brinkmann.

[Michaell]

The article headline is there but is not linked. Wonder if was he pressured to change it.

[Moonchild]

The article headline is there but is not linked. Wonder if was he pressured to change it.

You'll have to allow cookies on the site by confirming the pop-up for it (make sure it's not blocked)

[gepus]

The article headline is there but is not linked. Wonder if was he pressured to change it.

Whatever "not linked" means - if you hover over the headline the link gets displayed or if you click the headline you are directed to the article.

BTW, the site works just fine for me with cookies and scripting disabled.

[moonbat]

All this means is that they alone will have full access to your data and will reduce the ability of 3rd party advertisers from getting hold of it. Keeping your data away from them was never an option.

[Moonchild]

All this means is that they alone will have full access to your data and will reduce the ability of 3rd party advertisers from getting hold of it.

Which means more anti-trust/monopoly practices trying to force everyone to use Google ads.

[Blacklab]

Recent Ars Technica articles on the great Google internet heist... daylight robbery in progress... all in plain view:

"Google is protecting your privacy like a wolf would protect sheep..."
Google Chrome will limit ad blockers starting June 2024

"Google's "global effort" ad blocker crackdown escalates — Ads are YouTube's biggest revenue source."
YouTube’s ad blocker crackdown escalates, aggravating users

"Blocking ad blockers — When ad blocking is a cat-and-mouse game, make the mouse slower."
Chrome’s next weapon in the War on Ad Blockers: Slower extension updates

[Night Wing]

@ Blacklab

So far I have been able to block YouTube's rule of not allowing adblockers while viewing YT videos. I have been able to do so by keeping uBlock Origin enabled for YouTube and using the Permissions in the Tools button by blocking YT pop-ups and not allowing YT cookies since I do not have a YT account.

I decided to go this route since I do not like to use a lot of extensions and so far I have succeeded by not using an extension for this problem child of being forced to see irrelevant ads which have nothing to do with the videos I view on YT.

If YT wants me to view ads, then YT needs to make the ads relevant to the videos I am watching on YT. In other words, if I am viewing a longboard surfing video, make the ads relevant to surfing. There are plenty of surfboard manufacturers out in the real world and other companies which make accessories for surfing such as leashes, surf wax, fins, kickpads, etc.

With all of the glowing feel good talk of good AI is going to be for people, YT should be able to use AI to show me ads which are relevant to what I am viewing on YouTube. And I expect this to come about very quickly as in...........when pigs fly and cows jump over the moon.

[moonbat]

I'm enjoying the manifest v3 meltdown

[Piotr Kostrzewski]

https://www.techspot.com/news/101039-go ... Q8JLHNm_-Y

Google will make it harder/longer for developers to update ad blockers

[Moonchild]

Slowing down extension update cycles won't help them (much). Extensions can rely on external data to perform their tasks, after all.

[Piotr Kostrzewski]

I'm sure they'll come up with something else (Google)

[Moonchild]

It'll be yet another game of whack-a-mole.

I just wish everyone would stop doing those things, they are so wasteful.

I you'll indulge me for a moment...

There's an on-going and increasing trend in many parts of being on-line that should be reversed. It's the combination of wanting linear growth while not changing a product, and a resulting "war" where consumers/users simply want a reasonable and respectful treatment. I've seen this in many areas now and it's just getting worse. Take streaming media for example: in chasing the absolute maximum margin, media streaming services are consistently giving paying customers a worse experience than what they would get when pirating the same media. Often not even delivering what customers explicitly paid for (e.g. HD movies being streamed as 720p), or what Sony pulled very recently: people who had literally purchased Discovery documentary content from their digital media service having what they purchased removed from their library because Sony (not the user) had a licensing issue with Discovery.
The there's ads: having a paid subscription to a streaming service still being served ads! That should not be a thing.
On the topic of ads and adblocking, it's an issue that started a long time ago. Once again it's this idea that for some reason companies can't be happy with a solid, steady profit, and are constantly working on increasing net profit year over year, month over month if they can. With increasing quantity coming lower revenue per unit, and so publishers 9webmasters, app designers, etc) being forced to adjust to ever more ads for the same amount of content -- if you have seen "Idiocracy" then imagine the guy watching his TV show where the actual show would take up 10% of the screen with the rest being ads. We've been getting there in a good number of websites now. And why is that? not because webmasters got greedy, but rather because they saw their sustainability being harmed.

The problem ultimately is that all of this is being delivered in a forceful manner and nobody actually asks the consumer/users what they would prefer to see. Yes, there will always be freeloaders; that's just a fact of life and human society. With that I mean people who will go out of their way to never give anything back even to those that deserve it for what they offer, out of some extremism principle or what not. But I dare say that most sensible adults have no issue whatsoever directly paying for things they value (Patreon's success is a perfect example of that). But if you make people who want to do the right thing feel stupid for "wanting to do the right thing" (which is respecting creators/publishers and giving something back for what has been made available to them), then they will stop doing that. Trying to force people to do these things through enforced measures only achieves the opposite, and actually sets the premise for people wanting to freeload/pirate.

I feel this, one could say, viscerally, with people using Pale Moon. I don't want them to feel coerced in any way, shape or form, no matter the problems the project is having over time with declining search revenue share from DDG or people not considering supporting the project in some way, directly. I do everything in my power to make my skill-set, knowledge and experience available to everybody, by keeping as much as I can open and accessible, so that if they really want to, they can do it themselves in their way. What I do aim to provide is a valuable service and usable browser (packaged-up and ready-to-go) by having it available in a convenient, easy to use daily driver package that I hope is useful, that everyone can use in minutes. I wish more users would see that for what it is and help out with supporting the project. It's also the reason why I always feel odd accepting donations from devs who ave directly contributed to the code. They have already given back in another way. And there's the crux again of what I wanted to say in the beginning: this constant search for linear growth instead of enough money to comfortably continue at a healthy level. I do not know where or when that attitude changes between "indie" and "corporate". Whether it is attracting inherently lazy/greedy people when an organization grows, or if it is some process inside people's minds that changes, where they want to make this dichotomy that they want to be allowed to freeload off of their users/consumers, but nobody else is...

So, ultimately, I do see this continuing. Google has no interest in changing their constant search for ever increasing profit margins, and will try to increase what they can pull out of their ad business. As a result they will continue to push for tighter control and more elaborate ways to "bind" people into their advertising ecosystem -- this has been the long game from the start with Chrome. With the success this has been for them, they are now trying to capitalize on it any which way they can; by trying to wall off the web as a whole (with their client integrity framework they tried to push) or enforced proxying (privacy sandbox) or free services transitioning to paid (OAuth 2, Google business APIs) or any of the other ways they can direct their Chrome consumers into their ecosystem.
And the expected and predictable pushback will also continue.

And ultimately the ones who are suffering the most are the users.

[Piotr Kostrzewski]

They have a kind of monopoly, so you know.

[gepus]

Slowing down extension update cycles won't help them (much). Extensions can rely on external data to perform their tasks, after all.

"Once Manifest V3 lands, all extension updates will have to go through the Chrome Web Store. If an extension wants to updates its filter list, which is just a list of strings, it needs to do so by pushing an update to the Chrome Web Store."
source

Wonder how many shit Chrome (and its forks) users are going to eat. I hope it will be more than many of them can swallow.

[Moonchild]

"Once Manifest V3 lands, all extension updates will have to go through the Chrome Web Store. If an extension wants to updates its filter list, which is just a list of strings, it needs to do so by pushing an update to the Chrome Web Store."

That's just not possible to enforce for many extensions that need current and updated information on an hourly or so basis. It'd mean you can't have weather apps or stock apps or whatnot Webextensions have to be able to grab dynamic data from the web, like adblockers also do. Of course filter lists initally supplied with an adblocker will have to go through the Chrome store. that's nothing new. it's the updates to those lists that matter.

[daemonspudguy]

Wonder how many shit Chrome (and its forks) users are going to eat. I hope it will be more than many of them can swallow.

Considering Brave and Vivaldi have both, publicly, stated that they will not be adopting mandatory Manifest V3 for as long as that's possible, users of those browsers won't have those issues.

[moonbat]

for as long as that's possible

users of those browsers won't have those issues.

Can only pick one.