From anonymous, 1 Year ago, written in Plain Text.
  1. 12:01 <kraM> Hey guys. What are the plans for FLoC? Will qutebrowser protect me from getting "FLoCed"?
  2. 12:06 <The-Compiler> for context: " Federated Learning of Cohorts or FLoC, Google’s latest targeted advertising experiment"
  3. 12:06 <The-Compiler>
  4. 12:06 <The-Compiler> kraM: no idea though, to be honest
  5. 12:08 <The-Compiler> looks like that trial launches in Chromium 89, so will only be relevant with Qt 6.2 in September (if they update to 89 until then, AFAIK they're working on 88 now)
  6. 12:09 <The-Compiler> but even then, chances are that part of the code isn't even active with QtWebEngine
  7. 12:11 <kraM> I think FLoC is one of the worst ideas ever and may have huge impact on things way outside of the scope to provide even more money/power to google. And I really think qutebrowser should follow Vivaldi and others to protect people from google.
  8. 12:40 <ninewise> kraM, if it's avoidable (which is probably will be) it's very unlikely qutebrowser will turn it on by default
  9. 12:40 <ninewise> there might be a setting to turn it on though, since there's a setting for everything
  10. 13:05 <kraM> ninewise: I don't think this will be avoidable easily in future chromium versions with one configuration switch. Today you'd have to disable a lot of "features" to "opt-out" in terms of "there is just less data for FLoC to look at". You'd still get your FLoC ID and still data from the browser would be aggregated and sent to websites and google.
  11. 13:21 <nimaje> qt-webengine will probably remove that stuff or make it configurable
  12. 14:12 <The-Compiler> kraM: Sure, I guess everyone agrees to that, but there's a gap between what I'd like qutebrowser to do privacy-wise (or expose via options) and what QtWebEngine/Chromium lets it do
  13. 14:36 <kraM> The-Compiler: That's my main concern. If qb wasn't able to protect users from FLoC, this would mean that qb wouldn't be a viable alternative anymore. (imho)