back to article Google taps Fastly to make cookie-free adtech FLEDGE fly

Google says it has partnered with Fastly, a content delivery platform, to support its effort to deliver targeted ads in its Chrome browser with a greater measure of privacy. Google's FLEDGE is a Privacy Sandbox proposal to allow remarketing and custom audiences. It aims to let websites present ads that reflect visitor …

  1. Tubz Silver badge

    If I don't want to be tracked, it should be as simple as a default off switch in the browser and then exclusions I make, not by a company. If they track unlawfully, then massive fines based on global revenue, if I don't allow them to track, then they have the right to reduce the content that I can see but I also have the right to go elsewhere. Eventually, a balance will naturally occur.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      For GDPR they aren't allowed to reduce what you see if you don't consent... which seems to me a good thing. The reasoning being that it isn't a real choice otherwise.

      As for this system, why would anyone click 'please track me' and again in GDPR land I would think the default setting would have to be "don't track".... which incidently we've already got a setting for...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        GDPR has sometimes been a sledgehammer to crack a nut. That's not to say something needs/needed to be done about privacy but, like a lot of targeted legislation, it hurts those who try to act responsibly more than those who are happy bending/breaking rules.

        I would have no objection to content being restricted if I reject tracking and adverts - nothing comes free and if advertising revenue is needed to maintain the site, then so be it. It need be no different to sites that require a subscription for full access. My local paper (that I can download free via my library account) has an online version where some articles are open and others require a log-in (after a trial period). If the site has value, then people need to be prepared to accept the cost - in this case, being served adverts than paying a subscription.

        1. Alumoi Silver badge

          If the site has value, then people need to be prepared to accept the cost - in this case, being served adverts than paying a subscription.

          Nope. If you want to make money from your site, make it subscription only. No ads, no tracking. Just a freaking subscription.

          Oh, wait, nobody will pay for your crap site? Tough luck, try something else.

          1. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

            Internet ads from Google and friends are the biggest scam on the internet. Who actually buys anything from any of these ads. The rate must be terrible and yet companies are buying this bullshit.

            1. Ashto5

              Never bought from an Ad

              I cannot be the only person who has never bought from ad?

              I am sure Google and FB must know this but they keep putting their rubbish in front of me

              I use adblockers because of this

  2. tiggity Silver badge

    Just keep it simple

    Ads related to the content of the website I am on are the best option for sites that want to serve ads.

    The "interest" concept is too flawed.

    If I am briefly visiting a lot of sites looking at washing machines (e.g. I need to replace a broken one that is beyond repair) and then stop visiting washing machine related sites (because I have purchased one) then, even though "interests" are supposed to be short lasting it would mean that for a while I potentially still get served ads for washing machines, no use to me, or the advertiser who has wasted their cash on those ads.

    Similarly for lots of other things I may be needing to purchase but have zero need for ads relating to them once my purchase is over (apart from a relatively small number of sites I visit regularly, most of my web browsing is things to purchase & often not even an "interest" of mine as often partner has tasked me to order something). Live "in the sticks" and so in many cases online orders for more "specialist" items not available locally (such as a washing machine) less hassle to do that than a 50 mile round trip to nearest big city to look around "white goods warehouses" or whatever item I am looking to buy.

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Just keep it simple

      Exactly, the site provides meta-data about the content of the page and ads get displayed based on that. No tracking needed at all.

      1. Evil Scot

        Re: Just keep it simple

        But even that can be too course.

        Viewing articles on men's grooming products. In this case beard care.

        Advert on the site is for razor subscriptions,

        1. Cereberus

          Re: Just keep it simple

          I agree with Tiggity here.

          I don't especially mind a few ads if it helps a site stay up. What I don't want is to get suggestions for weeks after I have made a purchase.

          I don't see why the system can't tighten up the ads based on navigation. For example in Evil Scots comment I would accept a route along the lines of:

          Go to <enter name of> a website - I get ads for general care products of varying kinds

          Go to the section on, or search for shavers - I get ads for shavers, razors etc.

          Select a filter for beard care - I get ads for beard trimmers only, or the odd one for general shavers including beard trimmers

          Go to a site about barbecuing - I get general ads for BBQ tools, rubs and sauces, temperature gauges for food.......

          Go to the section on charcoal BBQs - I get ads for accessories for tools, charcoal, rotisseries....

          Go to the section for Kamado charcoal grills - I get adds for heat deflectors, lumpwood charcoal, heat deflectors.....

          and so on.

          What really annoys me though is when I get a cookie alert because my cookie blocker can't automatically respond saying no to all cookies, and then there is a list of different options and you have to go through each one saying no. I tend not to go back to these, ever.

          It should be a case of go to site, get a pop-up (if you don't have a cookie blocker) with perhaps 3 options (at most) . Accept all cookies, block all cookies, allow cookies required to use the site that are only valid for the time on the site. If you navigate away and come back then you start again.

          1. jilocasin
            Happy

            Re: Just keep it simple

            Those are known as content based ads. it's how ads were delivered since before the internet. Newspapers, television, radio, magazines, etc.

            Some clever individuals convinced companies that by tracking increasingly more and more personal data about you, they could serve 'targeted ads' ads tailored to the individual and so the thinking went that since these were supposed to be more likely to get consumers to make a purchase they should cost more to place.

            There's no actual proof that these targeted ads are any more effective than the good old fashioned content based ads they replaced online, we still use content ads in other mediums. But companies like Alphabet (re: Google) and others have made billions of euro pawning these questionable and yet vastly more expensive targeted ads off on companies.

            Reverting back to content based ads would remove the need for all of this privacy invasion. It would most likely be just as effective as the new fangled targeted ads and as a bonus the companies would be saving ad dollars. The only folks that stand to lose out are companies like Alphabet and all of the middling privacy invading enablers in the targeted ad ecosystem.

  3. Mishak Silver badge

    Am I reading this right?

    The auction runs in my browser, using my CPU, internet and electricity to provide a service I am neither interested in or want?

    Or does the browser just trigger the process?

    1. scarletherring

      Re: Am I reading this right?

      That's what I was thinking. But then it occurred to me, that's the way it's always been -- we pay for our own oppression.

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Am I reading this right?

      Not just that, the browser stores the data. As this is all a cookie does, it's still a cookie and will be slapped down by the courts.

      I think it's a sideshow and that advertisers switched to using finger printing a while back: no cookies required, no personally identifiable data stored, good enough…

    3. Claptrap314 Silver badge

      Re: Am I reading this right?

      And this is why, as a Google employee (in 2014), I had quit using Chrome in order to do my job.

      I have no doubt all of these network traversals & all this processing is directly impacting those using Chrome (or its derivatives).

    4. jilocasin
      Devil

      Re: Am I reading this right?

      Yep. just one more reason why Google's knee-capping the ability to control what javascript runs in your browser through extensions like NoScript.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Google's knee-capping

        Doh! Just stop using that POS called Chrome. It really is that simple.

        My home is a google free zone. (and Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and WhatsApp)

    5. sh4dow

      Re: Am I reading this right?

      If *my* browser auctions something off, then *I* should be paid for it. Why the hell should websites get money for lowering their value to visitors?

      If making free websites really is the problem, we need a system where readers can simply share adequate storage spacetime (eg. 1MB*s per site, with up to 2MB max data usage, or something similar) to crowd host the data. Anyone who has spare disk/network capacity could donate it to websites they like. And nobody would have to suffer ads.

  4. Mishak Silver badge

    Let's create the "I'm not interested in ads and don't want to be tracked" interest group.

    Is it just me, or has the internet been ruined by the advertising industry? Sure, it helps to "pay" for "free" sites, but it seems to have become the only purpose for a lot of sites.

    1. ludicrous_buffoon

      Re: Let's create the "I'm not interested in ads and don't want to be tracked" interest group.

      I see the unfiltered web on my non-techie friends' phones and it is the substance of nightmares. Cookie 'consent'/Popups/Autoplaying videos/Ads strewn everywhere. Javascript SPAs for news websites. Everything 'appified' to enable even easier tracking through $PHONE_OS APIs rather than in a plain old browser.

      We can't put the clock back, but we can pray for its collapse under its own weight and ensure we're at a safe distance when it finally caves in.

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Let's create the "I'm not interested in ads and don't want to be tracked" interest group.

      Advertising took over newspapers and broadcasting decades ago.

  5. deive

    noscript ftw.

    1. jilocasin
      Meh

      Google's already thought of that.

      Google's thought of that. No NoScript, or similar extensions in the new age, new target ad paradigm.

  6. ludicrous_buffoon

    Won't be fooled again

    > targeted ads

    > privacy

    Pick one.

  7. Long John Silver
    Pirate

    Is 'tacky' a defining term for shenanigans associated with advertising/marketing?

    The article describes efforts by earnest people to offer the impression of self-restraint in the marketing industry. Given imperatives within that industry, it all rings hollow. Indeed, the prospect of one's computational devices taking part in auctions among advertisers clamouring for access to them is surreal. Is this provision for billionaires to be inundated with advertisements for super-yachts, jet aircraft, NFTs, luxury deep bunkers, etc., necessities for their lifestyles, whilst at the other extreme people are targeted in intense competition among vendors of baked beans or of holidays in 'sinkholes' on the Spanish coast?

    Of course, for readers of this journal, interaction with advertisers is pretty much optional. One such describes horror arising when viewing 'content' displayed on non-tech-savvy acquaintances' phones. Unpleasant indeed even when advertisements are passive, and truly a nightmare when intrusion extends to animation, flashing, sound, and 'notifications'.

    Yet, effects of advertising extend beyond nuisance into subtle, and truly malign, influence on culture and its expression. This is most obvious in broadcast (online or airwaves) 'content'. Commissioners/purchasers of entertainment 'content' must beware of offending against values advertisers associate with themselves and/or with products they push. Moreover, canny producers organise their 'content' around anticipated ad-breaks.

  8. Mike 137 Silver badge

    "For GDPR they aren't allowed to reduce what you see if you don't consent"

    True, but it's amazing how many web sites put barriers such as grey overlays on their sites that are only removed by running javascript which also runs tracking bots, and the regulators do nothing when informed about this. Unless a law is enforced, it's effectively non-existent.

  9. iron Silver badge

    > a technique called k-anonymity. It's a way to promote privacy by hiding individuals within a crowd

    This sounds like privacy (security) through obscurity and we all know how well that works.

    Not that it will affect me. I will not run a Chrome based browser on my machines and I will block the advertising industry from vomiting over my monitor.

    1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

      I will not run a Chrome based browser on my machines

      I use Brave - it uses the Chromium engine and does ad-blocking by default (and switchable script blocking on a per-site basis).

      1. jilocasin
        Pint

        plus uBlock Origin

        I also use Brave as one of my many browsers. I don't trust that a browser maker can be fully trusted no matter how well intentioned when it comes to ad blocking and the lucrative advertising revenue.

        Just look what happened to AdBlock. Used to be a good extension, then the developer started selling AdBlock bypass passes for the right price. They claim they only sell these indulgences to 'responsible advertisers'.

        As long as the browser API supports robust ad blocking extensions, I believe it's a good idea to have a choice in who you trust to block ads from your browser.

  10. CowHorseFrog Silver badge

    Can the EU or UN please just make third party cookies and the entire idea of tracking illegal and fine the hell out of Google, FB and all the other social platforms.

  11. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

    OHAI (oblivious HTTP) is not yet a standard

    An Internet-Draft is not a standard, by definition. And draft-thomson-http-oblivious-01 expired in 2021. The current I-D expires in September of this year, and can be found here, though as of two days ago it was approved for Proposed Standard status, so an RFC should be appearing soon. Of course, even then it will still only be a Proposed Standard under IETF/IESG rules; very few RFCs ever ascend to their final form of Internet Standard.

    Per the announcement of status change there are still some issues to be worked out, which have been pushed into new standards-track documents.

    A nit, I know, but it annoys me when someone claims something is "a standard" and points to an I-D. There are many I-Ds which are little more than offhand ideas that never see any real deployment.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like