zlacker

I would say that the average HN user isn't so much opposed to targetted ads as they are opposed to organizations that are unaccountable to them storing their personal information in an insecure way. And Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. all provided information to the NSA so it could illegally spy on almost every American with access to the internet.

>>ErikVa+(OP)
This also seems to be a tech-elite/libertarian mindset and borders on paranoia. Does the average voter care enough to vote one way or other for it? I would suspect not.. they have bigger problems to deal with and they seem ok with government knowing something about them.

>>vaidhy+11
Being opposed to something that is literally proven to actually happen is "tech-elite/libertarian mindset and borders on paranoia"? I don't understand your point of view at all, frankly.

It's okay to say that you personally don't believe in a right to privacy or don't believe that it's an issue to vacuum up the data of own's own citizens, etc, but what I don't understand is saying that other people are paranoid elitists if they hold the view that they think it's wrong to spy on citizens. It seems incredibly uncharitable.

Furthermore your comment reads like you're addressing an argument the GP never made. What's the relevance of this section:

> Does the average voter care enough to vote one way or other for it? I would suspect not.. they have bigger problems to deal with and they seem ok with government knowing something about them.

The GP never insinuated that the average voter cares about such things (indeed by mentioning that the HN userbase does that implies that the general population does not otherwise it would not be worth mentioning)

>>ErikVa+(OP)
If that were the case, then wouldn't you expect the average HN user to like FLoC? Targeted ads, where the personal information is stored securely in your browser.

(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)

>>jefftk+ij
Why would I trust that what FLoC is presented as being is actually just that and only that? Everything google makes seems like bait and switch lies massaged by lawyerspeak to make it legal. Like anyone else who has burned me and my friends in the past, they have to show me they have nothing up their sleeve first

>>puebli+vn
What has Google done that they said they wouldn't?

>>lupire+Is
Not be evil? ;)

>>puebli+vn
> they have to show me they have nothing up their sleeve first

https://github.com/WICG/floc describes something open source and running on the client. Will that be sufficient, or is there additional disclosure you'd like to see?

>>ErikVa+(OP)
> they are opposed to organizations that are unaccountable to them storing their personal information in an insecure way.

.. unaccountable to them storing their personal information. Period.

>>jefftk+ij
Because having read the EFF article, it is clear that personal information is not secured to my browser. By definition, putting me into a category exposes my personal information, in a summarized form that is potentially reversible.

It enhances the ability to fingerprint me, effectively exposing my browsing history.

If Google offered it as an "opt in", giving me some reward for sharing my personal information that Google sells to advertisers, then that is a fair deal. In return for some form of sharing the revenue, Google gets to sell my information.

But that's not the model. It's still the "you're a product" model where Google not only gets to sell my search history, but now also continues to sell my browsing history.

I can see how it benefits Google and how it gives them/you something to sell to advertisers, but what's in it for me?

>>jefftk+ij
In general I agree. Cannot speak for others here of course.

The devil is in the detail. So if FLoC and new third party tools to subvert FLoC became too mainstream, then I would expect Google to act in its own interest and provide value-added back-end services. Just as has happened with Android AOSP and Play Services.

Until then though, I feel FLoC being both client-side and open-source would be an improvement on the status quo

>>rswail+aX
This isn't information that Google would sell to advertisers: the proposal is that it be available to all JavaScript in the browser: https://github.com/WICG/floc

What you get in return is that ad-supported sites you visit are better funded because they can show better-targeted advertising.

>>lupire+Is
Is this a joke? Google says it follows the law but has been fined $10+ billion in the last decade for violating it.