No, Google! Vivaldi users will not get FloC’ed.

[Shagohod660]

Just installed Vivaldi. Being based off of Chromium but having a customizable UI is what I wanted. The tab stacking and tab tile are my favorite features.

[mi1400]

chrome android doesn't want to show tab count above 99 (instead smiley), it doesn't (without debug/hacks) want to let u export android tabs, no bloat cleaning options (or sdmaid etc access) except clearing to blank zero, no 'share' option in pop-up of long pressing urls, youtube's stats for nerds cannot be enabled permanently if i want to save/worship their career related ad videos.. but still they want to shove such crap down our throats.. dear Google plz livk daily ur own "dont be evil" jargon.. huh

[dude99]

@Komposten said in No, Google! Vivaldi users will not get FloC’ed.:

Why use a less optimal advertising technique, unless it provides another source of revenue (say, trade in personal information) that's large enough to cover the loss in ad revenue and the cost of the personalisation technology?

1. China, remember the dragonfly thingy Google try to made? FloC would be the ultimate wet dream for CCP. LOL

2. Control. Yes, Google are not satisfied with just monetize you with Ads, they want to know all about you & then offer your subconscious to the highest bidder. Oh, wait. They already doing that...

3. The Great Reset. Whatever you believe it really is, it will involve large amount of personal data to become a reality. And what's better way to make it possible than turning everyone web browser into a malware that send all personal data to whoever wanted it by default?

[dude99]

@code3 said in No, Google! Vivaldi users will not get FloC’ed.:

Opt outs are required by law.

Sure. If you want to access all website, then get floC. Else you can opt out & stare at a lot of loading screen or a broken mess that plaster with warning "Please enabled floC for complete experience."

This will be like "Your inferior lousy browser are not supported, upgrade to G Chrome now!" ads that appear all over the Internet. /s

[Catweazle]

@code3 , yes, Mapbox has something like the Streetview, but it's for Android or car navis, apart it's paid, the free version is very limited compared to maps. I don't see it as a real alternative.
I also have Privacy Redirect, but half the time the corresponding public instances of the alternatives do not work, this is the problem with self hosted applications, when you do not do it yourself, then it depends that the one that has hosted it is also online.
@dude99 , this danger really exists, but I think, as it is said here, where there is a law, there is also a trap. Not so long ago when Vivaldi still appeared in the UA string, we had precisely this message often on screen, so the Vivaldi Team sacrificed the name in the UA string and since then we have not had this problem again. I'm sure there's a restriction on the FLoC, there'll also be people pulling countermeasures to trap it.

[dude99]

@Catweazle

Not so long ago when Vivaldi still appeared in the UA string, we had precisely this message often on screen, so the Vivaldi Team sacrificed the name in the UA string and since then we have not had this problem again.

So now Vivaldi have 0% visible global market share?
Smells like bullying & stifle of competition to me, & this is extremely bad for Vivaldi in long run, because they are simply turning away from the problem by sacrificing their growing potential. But I guess Vivaldi have no choice but to put up with this bullying since Google is one of their source of income...

I'm sure there's a restriction on the FLoC, there'll also be people pulling countermeasures to trap it.

Cat & mouse game, malicious innovation begat never ending of annoyance & timewaster. This will probably end up like popup window, notification, Do not track, & 3rd party cookies that bloating "modern" browser with obsolete features no one wanted.

UBlock Origin should become a default extension for all modern browser before Google kill it with manifest v3. It took so long for adblocker to be integrated into Vivaldi, I fear FLoC will cause even greater damage if no one dare to KILL it before it spread it's tentacles to everywhere.

[Catweazle]

@dude99 , yes, obviously we did not like the decision to remove V from the UA, but even so V is taken into account in the world and, despite currently having only a market share of few percentages, it is often mentioned together with the greats of the market, Chrome, FF, Opera and Safari , much more than others that have a greater diffusion.
Apart from sacrificing the Vivaldi name at the UA for the benefit of users, it says a lot about the philosophy of this company to put the user's interests before their own and is one of the reasons why I fully support them, not only for a unique browser.

[dude99]

@Catweazle Anywhere I can find Vivaldi's market share other than Vivaldi's own report? A few % of global market share sounds really high, according to https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share Edge only have 3-4%, Opera is still around 2%, & FF is slowly sinking way below 4%.

[Priest72]

I find that these statistics can be woefully inaccurate.
Some users for example can change the user agent string.

If vivaldi is identifying as chrome then the vivaldi usage stats can never be 100% accurate and vice versa.
Chrome could be gaining more usage figures when in fact it could be other chromium based browsers being used.

[code3]

@dude99 said in No, Google! Vivaldi users will not get FloC’ed.:

Sure. If you want to access all website, then get floC. Else you can opt out & stare at a lot of loading screen or a broken mess that plaster with warning "Please enabled floC for complete experience."
This will be like "Your inferior lousy browser are not supported, upgrade to G Chrome now!" ads that appear all over the Internet. /s

Umm... I don't think you realize what I'm talking about.

1. In many countries, areas/regions/states, an opt-out is legally required. For instance, Google was forced to make an opt-out for Google Analytics. The opt-out does not stop you from using any websites. Many ad companies have made the opt-out called AdChoices. It doesn't work so well but ad companies can't make webpages not work because you opted out, it is against the law.

2. FloC also has the concept of an "empty cohort". This is for people who, in Google's view, would have a cohort that gives away sensitive info. Vivaldi could just place us in the empty cohort.

[dude99]

@Priest72 said in No, Google! Vivaldi users will not get FloC’ed.:

I find that these statistics can be woefully inaccurate.

Yes. They are just guesswork, thus we use 'em as guideline to calculate browser's growth instead of absolute fact.

Chrome could be gaining more usage figures when in fact it could be other chromium based browsers being used.

That's exactly what's happening. GC got an artificial boost in support for almost everything Internet because of this. Then, other chromium browsers continue to locked in "unsupported" disadvantage because webmasters & software developers can't "see" their actual market share. For example: IDM refuse to support Vivaldi officially because they deem it insignificant in user base.

[dude99]

@code3 said in No, Google! Vivaldi users will not get FloC’ed.:

The opt-out does not stop you from using any websites.

I understand that. But that doesn't stop 'em from using dark pattern design to coerce visitor into accepting FLoC. They will give minimal support to those opt out of FLoC (if any at all), intentionally make you stuck at loading for minutes while hinting at you FLoC user are have much better experience! Or simply bar you from certain functions that "doesn't work without FLoC". But at the end, the website still "works" for everyone, just slightly different.

The Laws only required website to work or functional for all, so advertisers aren't stupid enough to request webmaker to block user out right. But they will make you jump through hoops, make you suffer enough in daily basis until you give in eventually.

Take a look at Chromium's cookies UI design. It does works, yes? But it's designed intentionally to punish those who refuse to accept all cookies, the UI are a hassle to whitelist/blacklist individual cookies. And the end result is most people just give up & let advertisers exploit them via cookies.

---

FloC also has the concept of an "empty cohort"

If you think I'm racist by calling someone nigger, then what's the different when I replaced "nigger" label with something sounds better, like "Color Human", but still treat those I labeled as Color Human in distain?

FLoC is a discrimination system, it label you & group you together with similar group of people, then treat you all differently than other groups of people. It's not just about seeing different ads, it can hide things from you, or even feed you different version of (mis)information than someone else.

Also, FLoC can be tweak, alter & manage by people at any time. Just like Google & Youtube algorithm, it might start out in pure intention to mitigate discrimination, but when "some people" begin to tweak the algorithm, it evolved into the mess we are in today. FLoC is no different, it will end up the same. A.I. is nothing but tools that follow commands, so when it's guided by malicious intention it will corrupt.

[Catweazle]

@dude99, this is why it is urgent to promote alternative products to Google and get as far away from this company as possible. This is the only way, when losing customers, that Google gives up these activities. As in all harmful products, only the user himself can end up with these, by stopping consuming them, politicians cannot be expected to do so.
Although I think, by the EC's own regulations, at least here, Google will not be able to put these 'inventions', but in many other countries.

[Catweazle]

@guigirl , I agree, but it does not mean that I continue to promote the use of alternatives where I always can.
Even Vivaldi, although quite 'un-gargled', still depends too much on the Dark Tower, even taking it in the contextual menu (click on a image, search with G, opens G search) and depending on the Store, which squeaks me a lot, like finding a spider in the cafe.

[dude99]

@Catweazle This is what I worry about.

Today's Google ain't the old Google anymore, it have insert itself into Biden's White house. God knows what they can do from within with that senile old man... Also, G Chrome have become too big to fail, they may loss few millions users for months, but they will survive & continue to push ahead in the name of maximize profits.

Unless, there is a proactive group of noises loud enough to generate a social stigma around FLoC like dragonfly, tweeter, or CNN, then Google might have to put it on the back burner until they manage to repacked it. But currently I don't see it would happen that way, cuz everyone just try to avoid FLoC & not to upset the big G too much.

[Catweazle]

@dude99 , for this reason, this information must be disseminated as much as possible, this is the only way that they are more than just a few million.
It does not change anything in the saying, that the market can only be changed by the consumer himself.
Spread the word-

[jamesbeardmore]

I've always blocked 3rd-party cookies. I don't remember the option in Spry or Spyglass Mosaic, but I remember the option being present in Internet Explorer, sometime around IE 3, 4, or 5. It was also in Netscape and pre-evil Opera. It's never broken a web page for me in all that time until last year, when I had to use MS Teams for something at work. The teams web interface does some pretty unnecessary random-juggling of cookies and domains just to log you in. It's so convoluted you have to actually lower Firefox and Vivaldi's privacy and security settings from the fresh-install defaults, to make it work!

Similar case with Firefox's first-party isolation and ResistFingerprinting about:config options, along with tweaks to the xoriginpolicy and xorigintrimmingpolicy. I enabled them in that browser as soon as they existed; I've only seen breakage this year (anything that redirects while authenticating, e.g. paying for something with Paypal, or online shops where a 3rd party credit-card payment page loads). Prior to this year, these features gave no noticeable impact on my browsing.

I have a few concerns about the effectiveness of Floc and its implementation, so I'm really glad Vivaldi is taking this stance! That said, there are several issues that may still rear their ugly heads:

De-facto standards Hopefully this technology, as described, can't become some sort of de-facto web standard, but I think this is still a plausible threat. Even if it's not published/accepted as an official web standard, if Goggle push it on webmasters and include it in the most popular browser, there could come a point where it is so widely-adopted that it essentially becomes a requirement to view a site. If every site starts using this nonsense and requiring their viewers to enable it, there will be no meaningful way to opt-out because doing so would render the web essentially inaccessible. This reminds me very much of Microsoft's old "embrace, extend, eliminate" policy. This would result in a Goggle-controlled web, with Goggle Crummy-um as the only web browser in existence. Think "This site works best in Internet Explorer" on steroids, or the MSN fiasco with no possibility of a "Vivaldi Bork edition".

No meaningful opt-out Apparently we have "choice" when it comes to our privacy, cookies and things on line. Apparently Goggle and Facecrook give us the "power" to be "in control of our data". I could say that this is complete and utter bovine-excrement, but Fakebook and Goggle would probably tell me that making such a statement would be "double-plus ungood". Basically because we have a "legal right" to be able to "opt out" of tracking, most companies pay lipservice to the concept without prividing a meaningful way to opt-out. For instance, both services have endless pages of illogically-grouped, disparate options to reduce data-collection, which are often hidden away. They make it so inconvenient and difficult that to many it would be prohibitive. Similarly, with cookie-notices on web sites, you get the option to disable tracking cookies, but quite often this is behind pages and pages of options for each individual advertising network. Or there's a list of 100 different cookies, with an "accept all" button and no "reject all" button, so they have to be disabled one by one to be opted-out of. Then there's all the American web sites that can't be bothered with GDPR so just geoblock Europe. Or dark patterns, such as a massive, highlighted "Track me and enable all this cool stuff" button, and a smaller (or hidden) option "No thanks, I don't want to save money or get fast delivery". These aren't allowing users "meaningful consent". Similarly, if a site decides not to allow users access if they don't accept being violated and abused, the site is still "working", however in practise the user has no meaningful choice. They either accept the unacceptable or browse elsewhere (if "elsewhere" is available).

I think these two above points mean that Goggle's new "privacy" antifeature has the potential to pose a significant threat to online freedom and also the very existence of alternative browsers. It's another way in which Goggle become the gatekeeper of the internet.

And all this to perpetuate a revenue model that's broken to begin with:

Targeted ads don't work. I used to use Facebook a little bit, and no content-blocker seemed to be able to remove sponsored posts etc., so that was the one place I ever saw adverts. Perhaps a few months after I'd bought my modern car, Facebook recognised it in a photo or perhaps some accompanying text, and decided I needed to be bombarded with adverts to have an experience as a passenger in one at a racetrack, go to a dealership and look at one, etc. I also once put a Youtube playlist on someone else's computer, which contained bands such as Immortal and Lamb of God. "Christian dating" adverts subsequently started following my ironically very Pagan-and-proud friend around the web for a little while. What would have been more effective? Those web sites could have just hosted ads based on what was on their actual pages! No profiling required!

You can't bully people into liking you. If people are going to the effort to change default browser settings to block tracking, profiling and the like, and if they are setting "do not track" (which is universally-ignored) that's sending a very clear message: "I'm not interested, I don't click ads, I won't buy anything, you won't get any money from me, you're wasting your time". If companies feel like they need to find ways of defeating this and sneaking around this, then they clearly know what they are doing is wrong and they are quite simply bullying, violating and irritating the people they hope to win-over as customers. Please excuse the language, but I don't know many businesses where you win new customers by ping them off! I know a lot of people will say "but the people who purchase the ad-space are the real customers, the surfers are just the product" - but the money has to enter the system in the first place from people buying stuff because of ads - i.e. the surfers. If ads were less obnoxious and respected "do not track", everyone wouldn't be blocking them, and there'd be no need for these new Orwellian "web-experience enhancing" workarounds.

Anyway, sorry for the long rant, which probably echoes what a lot of other people here are already saying. I hadn't quite expected this post to get so long, but hey, you know what it's like when something really winds you up!

[Catweazle]

I think that in general the ads are overvalued, I don't believe in their efficiency, given the over-saturation that we experience every day, not only on the Internet, but in daily life, in every corner there are posters and illuminated advertisements, in Newspapers, television, radio ..., no one notices them and they do nothing but annoy.
If a product is good, people will use it, if not, the ads also do not serve to confirm something else.
People, if they need something, go to the store, to the car dealership, to online stores, they look for what they need and buy it if it corresponds to their needs, there is no more.

[MichaelTheGamer]

Ohhh, Man! I can't believe I completely missed one huge, major component! Yes, I got rid of Chrome a/w/a Chromium on my Linux-run computer, and I am trying to get rid of my Gmail account (which I am open to suggestions about) but I have been using Google Rewards and buying some Google Play Cards to use like real money for games, movies and such. I can't remember how many times I have answered dozens of questions for a few cents here and there. I was actually suckered into the idea that the questions were always from anonymous (to me, but not the other way around) companies that wanted to run surveys. And there are. In fact any of us can pay Google to use Google Rewards for any kind of surveys that you can direct almost any way you want. But I have been answering so many questions for a couple of years! Hmm, actually...I can never remember my blood type or the Rh Factor match (the positive or negative part of the blood types). Yeah, I mean by now, Google has to know that as well.
Wow. Sorry, I am still just blown away by my stupidity.

[MichaelTheGamer]

@jamesbeardmore: Totally agree! Do you know how difficult it is to change the WebView Implementation from Chrumb to AngryDroid System Webview (which is trading one bad for another as Geegle owns AngryDroid anyway!) but it took over 10 tries and I have auto updates disabled but Chrumb took liberties anyway.