The demise of 3rd party cookies, FLoC, and BAT

7

Steve and Leo had an interesting discussion on the death of third party cookies and Google’s attempt to replace them with the FLoC concept. EFF’s take on FLoC https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/googles-floc-terrible-idea

At first, turning off 3rd party cookies broke a lot of sites. After Safari 13.1 turned 3rd party cookies off by default, most websites magically started to work without 3rd party cookies. Thanks Apple.

I’ve been playing around with Brave ads, Basic Attention Tokens (BAT), and BAT tipping. It could use refinement but I prefer this ad concept and hope it succeeds.

Comments (7)

7 responses to “The demise of 3rd party cookies, FLoC, and BAT”

  1. longhorn

    So who needs ads?


    Who needs VCRs, Sony Walkmans, Sony Discmans, Compact Discs, Mini Discs, cowboy hats etc. OK, maybe cowboy hats are still needed.


    We need to start the discussion with why Internet was created and what purpose it is supposed to serve.


    Maybe monopolization of the ad business is the root cause of its demise? Maybe more paywalls is a solution? Is anyone using a Web browser without an adblocker in 2021?


    That's why Google wants to eliminate the adblocker by serving the whole page (content and ads) as one bundle (WebBundles). A positive side effect for Google would be that it would also eliminate the business model of Brave.


    https: double slash brave dot com/webbundles-harmful-to-content-blocking-security-tools-and-the-open-web/


    Is it a human right to make money from ads? It could be. I don't have the answer.


    Covid times are the perfect time to rethink the purpose of the Web if not the whole economy.


  2. wright_is

    I block around 2.5 million sites at home on my network, the vast majority tracking sites, with known malware sites.

    I see no benefit in being tracked. Before I did this, targeted ads were usually useless, either products I already own or products I would never buy. A waste of my time and the advertiser's money. Only Google and Facebook benefit from so-called targeted advertising.

    I've bought more products through TWiT advertising than targeted ads.

    Looking at twitter, I've blocked over 50 ads recently for products that nobody with the intelligence of an amoeba would buy.

    I say go back to targeting the site or the page being shown, you probably have a better chance of getting it right than with targeted ads.

  3. codymesh

    Any system proposed by present day Google needs a thorough vetting by an independent body. It's good that the EFF has spoken out.


    Tech can do better.

  4. anoldamigauser

    Any standard proposed by Google, will be good for Google and nobody else. It is a company and that is what companies do. Google makes good software (well, not gmail) and I would pay to use it, but I will not willingly use it to be targeted by ads that I already block.

    "Don't be evil" has become a joke.

  5. miamimauler

    In reply to lvthunder:

    It isn't just the ads though, if only it was that way because many would choose to accept that. It's the tracking and security implications of allowing ads these days that is the problem.


    The current set up is unacceptable for users but so is paywalls going up all over the internet. I don't claim to have a solution though but the status quo is untenable for both users and websites who have every right to make a living.

  6. jimchamplin

    I'm of the assumption that Microsoft won't be bringing over all of El Goog's shit into Edge. I've been giving Edge another try and I'm liking it. I'm probably going to stay with Firefox fulltime, but I'm happy there's a good major-platform option.

  7. longhorn

    In reply to lvthunder:

    The ad blocker may have started as a tool to block visual ads. Today it's a tool to block trackers and potential malware. So it's about privacy and security while also dealing with visual annoyance.


    As a bonus the Web gets much faster especially on low-end hardware.


    For many years I wanted to be nice and keep the Web alive by allowing "Acceptable ads" (a concept by Adblock Plus that allows static ads of a certain size), but this concept can also be taken advantage of to deliver trackers. So while a good initiative for letting ads to be displayed it kind of fails for trackers.


    Now I use uBlock Origin which blocks a substantial amount of trackers out of the box. It's probably killing the Web (ad/tracker revenue) at the same time and that's why I think there needs to be a discussion/resolution at a higher level.


    Most governments seem uninterested so the most likely outcome is that the current situation will continue.


    The only ads I see are those that have been embedded in a video by content creators (YouTubers). I respect those ads because it takes some effort and skill to make those ads fit naturally.


Leave a Reply