How can we ensure the open web is not destroyed?

[lukewhitmore]

I've been thinking a lot about this proposal, and I've been trying to understand the potential motivation of Google and how the situation could potentially play out to provide Google with an advantage.

• Google have proposed a technology that replaces the tracking functionality provided by cookies, by tracking users based on their loose membership of cohorts.
• The technology is not generalised - it provides specific utility to advertisers.

---

• Google has presented this technology proposal as a potential open-source specification. Google gains an advantage by participating in the open web. There's not much chance of this technology being accepted by the open-source community. I would surmise that this is expected by Google; if it feels obvious to me, I'm sure it feels obvious to other people.
• Other browser manufacturers have rejected FLoC already.

---

• The advertising industry is likely to be very keen to adopt this technology.
• Chrome is the dominant browser used on the web.
• Chrome already provides a number of APIs and features that are Chrome specific. Google tries to continue to support the concept of an open web, by proposing ratification of these specifications via the W3C. Regardless of this behaviour, the existence of technologies prior to an agreed W3C specification, could be seen to provide a marketing advantage to Chrome.
• A browser manufacturer stands to gain benefit from locking an audience into their specific browser, as it will increase their market dominance. This was obviously the main motivation behind Microsoft going rogue with Internet Explorer 6.

---

• If advertisers make use of FLoC, they're likely to want to ensure that their audience use Chrome, so they can continue to monetise their content. I can see a world where sites that use advertising ensure their site only functions on Chrome.
• Apple has it's own closed ecosystem. Facebook has it's own closed ecosystem. Google would end up by fully dominating the open web, as it's own closed ecosystem.

---

If this scenario develops - how can we ensure the open web is not destroyed?

[dmarti]

Some other mainstream browser vendors have not announced implementation plans, but they have not committed to not doing FLoC either. (Source)

Web advertising is generally placed through a real-time bidding process, so if legit advertisers begin using FLoC extensively, then users of non-FLoC browsers will not get bid on by the higher-bidding FLoC-using campaigns and end up receiving more lower-quality or deceptive ads. Non-Chrome browsers might end up being able to give their users a better total experience by implementing the FLoC API (with additional protections, if needed) than by leaving all their users in the "null cohort".

[michaelkleber]

Hello @lukewhitmore,

FLoC is one of several Chrome proposals with the common goal of letting the advertising-supported open web continue to function in a world without cross-site tracking. Other major browsers agree that this is a worthwhile goal, and the W3C is home to an ongoing discussion of the best way to accomplish it. If you wish to join in on that conversation, I would suggest participating in the W3C Improving Web Advertising Business Group.

But if your goal is to talk about one browser causing self-preferencing lock-in by behaving differently from the consensus of other web browsers, then you are aiming in the wrong direction. Please take a look at https://infrequently.org/2021/04/progress-delayed/ for a better understanding of the state of cross-browser compatibility and web standards.

[lukewhitmore]

Thx @dmarti

Web advertising is generally placed through a real-time bidding process, so if legit advertisers begin using FLoC extensively, then users of non-FLoC browsers will not get bid on by the higher-bidding FLoC-using campaigns and end up receiving more lower-quality or deceptive ads.

Why would it stand to reason that users would receive lower-quality or deceptive ads if they used a browser that didn't implement FLoC?

[lukewhitmore]

Thx @michaelkleber

But if your goal is to talk about one browser causing self-preferencing lock-in by behaving differently from the consensus of other web browsers, then you are aiming in the wrong direction. Please take a look at https://infrequently.org/2021/04/progress-delayed/ for a better understanding of the state of cross-browser compatibility and web standards.

My goal is to understand the landscape if FLoC is implemented by Chrome, and not by other browsers; and ultimately how advertisers are likely to react in this scenario.

[michaelkleber]

In that case, note that third-party cookies are still available in Chrome today, and have been removed in other browsers. Many publishers and advertisers already have strong opinions about the impact this has had on monetization of the open web.

[lukewhitmore]

@michaelkleber

In that case, note that third-party cookies are still available in Chrome today, and have been removed in other browsers. Many publishers and advertisers already have strong opinions about the impact this has had on monetization of the open web.

I just can't see how this will play out well at the moment.

The scenario I've outlined is obviously extreme, but I think it's worth thinking about what the world will look like if Chrome is the only browser that supplies a technology that gives advertisers what they need.

Will the advertising industry be likely to incentivise publishers to prioritize an audience which enables them to utilise FLoC?

Maybe the landscape will become more complicated, and various competing technologies will be used by the advertising industry to maintain its ability to target adverts.

My smart TV wants me to let it target adverts based on my demographic. I choose not to. My thinking is there isn't a huge fight to convince me to do otherwise, because this threshold hasn't been broached for the majority yet.

There's a trend in modern life. We lose a liberty, and regaining that liberty is impossible in the name of profit.

It's depressing.

[kuro68k]

Web advertising is generally placed through a real-time bidding process, so if legit advertisers begin using FLoC extensively, then users of non-FLoC browsers will not get bid on by the higher-bidding FLoC-using campaigns and end up receiving more lower-quality or deceptive ads. Non-Chrome browsers might end up being able to give their users a better total experience by implementing the FLoC API (with additional protections, if needed) than by leaving all their users in the "null cohort".

I think it more likely that FLoC will accelerate the trend of simply blocking ads entirely. Rather than saving the ad revenue stream it will destroy it, by encouraging browser developers and users to use blocking technologies to block FLoC and any potentially low quality ads that result in said blocking.

The only solution to the problem of ad revenue going away is to create a system of safer, less annoying and most importantly privacy respecting ads. Since FLoC does none of those things it is part of the problem, not the solution.

[flatsiedatsie]

Exactly.

The only advertising I'm willing to accept is if it's based on the content of the page I'm visiting, not the content of my character.

We took a wrong turn somewhere around 2003, and we need to go back and develop advertising based on the content of webpages more. That way we don't need to normalise large-scale surveillance infrastructure and businessmodels. The risk for abuse is huge, while the financials gains are relatively small.

Advertising based on page content: 1% of people clicks an add.
Advertising based on surveillance: 2% of people click on adds.

It's disproportionate.

After Dutch advertising service STER noticed that over 90% of people were opting out of surveillance-driven advertising, they switched to advertising based on page content. It turned out they actually made more money this way.