It is. If you’re not calling ‘document.interestCohort()’ or serving ads from an ad network on your page then FLoC does nothing. The purpose of this permission is to prevent embedded third-party content from using FLoC.
*If Google does not detect ads. Which can mean anything depending on how they stretch the definition. And Google has a bad history with this kind of thing, see unwarranted and unexplained account bans as well as automated "malicious website" flagging that's notoriously hard to get rid of because Google won't even tell the website owner what part of the site was detected as malicious.
Genuine question: any ads from any network? Not just googles? Because if so, I fully expect someone to mess up and have that detection mark sites with zero ads as having them, thus tracking their users. Detection is never 100%. Never ever.
Unless I’m misunderstanding, which is likely (and I hope I am)
Yeah that should be the default configuration shipped with Apache httpd. If apache is refuse to add the header, I'm sure it will be possible to convince many distros to add it
No, we should absolutely not bloat every HTTP response just because Google wants to abuse its users. Not to mention that widespread use of this header will result in it being ignored entirely just like happened to DNT. The proper reponse is to a) convince people to stop using Chrome and other Google software and b) campaign for legislation and antitrust enforcement and c) remove google ads, analytics and any other Google scripts from your websites.
Unless Google make it a benefit in search rankings in which case some (possibly many) will for SEO purposes, bit still not enough I'd wager (and the balance would be such that lower quality sites, that prioritise SEO over actually useful content, would be the majority of those that went for it).
This feels a bit like way-back-when, when BT and a couple of other UK ISPs toyed with a system that would insert ads into web content, sometimes replacing existing ads, simultaneously bothering their users (to make money out of them on top of existing subscription payments), screwing site runners (being associated with ads they had no control or even knowledgeless knowledge of, and potentially losing ad revenue), and screwing other advert providers.
I would assume that anyway. Who other than sites using Google analytics or ads (so part of the tracking network anyway) would opt in to being part of the tracking network that (unless they switch to Google's ads too) offers little or no benefit to them?
I'm sick of having to add yet another config option every time some Web giant decides it is OK to abuse my website and my visitors.