[o_m]

It can be a death sentence in countries where homosexuality is illegal. Say you are FLoC branded as being LGBT (sort of like the pink triangle in nazi concentration camps) and you visit a government website, they will know about your sexuality and can arrest you.

[froh]

Political tags are explicitly banned from the FLoC tagging data which identifies locally your 'secular', a-political preferences.

in contrast to that Facebook can identify you as LGBT+ today based off your likes and dislikes and shares.

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/4/1036

[feanaro]

> Political tags are explicitly banned from the FLoC tagging data which identifies locally your 'secular', a-political preferences.

Just because this is said to be so on paper doesn't mean it would actually be so. How would this work in practice with the LGBT example? Would every LGBT-related website be tagged as a "political" website in Google so that it is not included in the calculation? What about clearly non-problematic a-politicial categories which nevertheless serve as a good proxy for detecting LGBT members because of e.g. their increased interest in the topic?

> in contrast to that Facebook can identify you as LGBT+ today based off your likes and dislikes and shares.

This is irrelevant because we're not choosing. Facebook tracking is also terrible.

[o_m]

There are 33000 group IDs. A service with your identity could track how your group ID is changing over time a triangulate your political view or sexuality based on ID patterns of people they have arrested already.

[htoiewur2434]

Don't think floc tags be shared b/w domains

[o_m]

The entire point of FLoC is to track you across all domains and collect all of your browser history to put you into a group. If it was only for one domain every user would be in the same group.

[htoiewur2434]

cookies do the same thing, but you can't access cookies stored for other domains.

(i'm surprised people screaming apocalypse have such poor understanding of the web).