floc

stCohort() and the individual site's JS could react accordingly: https://github.com/WICG/floc . This means that any site, regardless of its contracts with ad networks, could immediately identify your cohort and associate it with your activity. Web developers working in good faith would be encouraged to have user.cohort or user.topic fields from day one "just so you have it" - imagine all the ways someone could use this in bad faith. Inevitably this data would leak (or be intentionally leaked) and could trivially become a target list for doxxing closeted people. It's a dangerous, dangerous proposal.

u have like even 10 different cohort IDs, even if some of them are 'fake'/'noise' that's probably enough to ID you alone Here's an image from google's site. https://web-dev.imgix.net/image/80mq7dk16vVEg8BBhsVe42n6zn82... It also seems like Chrome/google might be still defaulting browser settings to give themselves even more data just like they currently do? https://github.com/WICG/floc#qualifying-users-for-whom-a-coh... BUT when you layer on the other proposals (Fledge/Turtledove/Dovekey or whatever) - which I don't understand that much maybe someone else can explain - it seems like it basically collect this page/product level data and makes it available to DSP etc for tracking/ad serving (again if not technically 1:1 basically in consequence given the sizes of these groups). Like one of the proposals talks about a 'trusted' key/value server which doesn't seem that different from what already happens? The original proposal wanted to move the entire ad bid/target/serve process into the browser.

d more sites build support, CDNs enable it by default [2014] Safari adds support. [2015] Standardized as HTTP/2: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7540 Standardization follows cross browser support, and cross browser support follows single browser support. This is the path FLoC is following: it's currently incubated under the WICG (https://github.com/WICG/floc) and Chrome is developing it. Other browsers are paying attention and evaluating: that's what this Mozilla article is about. If at some point we get to a version that other browsers are happy with and choose to implement, then it could potentially be standardized. (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)

ers this will probably shift budgets to subscription of which Apple takes its cut. All this will further the supremacy of walled-gardens and big tech, at the expense of smaller independent players. I'll be honest, there is a creepy feeling when being tracked cross-site, and adtech providers have collectively failed at providing explanations, and a transparent account of how this works and why this is useful. They have also relied on fingerprinting, which has hurt the credibility of the field. The issue is that the replacement that are currently in the works (https://github.com/WICG/floc and https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/blob/main/FLEDGE.md) are extremely complex, will still dramatically impact adtech performance and only improve privacy for a very contrived definition of the concept which incidentally benefits once again big tech vendors... As to the effectiveness of advertising, removing tracking will have a huge impact. And this affects all players in the value chain, not only adtech providers but also publishers and more importantly advertisers which will see their return on ad spent severely impacted. There is a real of loss "social welfare" (I mean in a game-theoretic sense, but also for real if you believe in capitalism) if tracking is disabled. The freakonomics article gets cited a lot but the industry as a whole is moving forward with a greater emphasis on proving incremental sales. Advanced clients (who can spend billions per year) have real statisticians doing permanent randomized control trials proving that every dollar spent is providing incremental sales. I work for an adtech company and we have automatic RCTs for every single client, and guess what, advertising works for most clients. This is on top of fact that we are measuring the effectiveness of dollars spent on us, in addition to the dollars spent on competitors/other channels on which we have no control of course. The fact that Uber could see no impact when going from 150m to 50m is a testament to the incompetency of their CMO, which could not be bothered to actually measure and pilot the campaigns correctly, not the effectiveness of adtech as a whole. Thoughts are my own not my employer's.

} Lighttpd: server.modules +=("mod_setenv") setenv.add-response-header=("Permissions-Policy"=>"interest-cohort=()") Netlify: [[headers]] for="/*" [headers.values] Permissions-Policy="interest-cohort=()" Nginx: add_header Permissions-Policy interest-cohort=(); [1] https://github.com/WICG/floc#opting-out-of-computation