The internet is split roughly into 3. The top 100 websites get a third of the page views, the remaining top 10k get another third and millions of websites get the last third.
The top 100 have dedicated engineering and policy teams teams that will disable FLoC because they're either not interested in ads (Wikipedia) or have their own first party implementation that doesn't need FLoC (Facebook). They'll ditch FLoC.
The next 10k might have engineering teams that can make the change, but might be more interested in finding out about their audience so they can monetize more easily. They'll keep FLoC.
As for the remaining millions, only a tiny minority of them will even know this is a thing, let alone care enough to make the change or contact a developer who can do it. These are the folks who have hosted their wordpress site with GoDaddy because it was cheap and quick when they needed a site. They'll keep FLoC.
So the upshot is that github.com, instagram.com and amazon.com might opt out, but the vast majority of the web will not. Me prediction is that at least half of all web pages loaded by users won't have this header.
> will disable FLoC because they're either not interested in ads (Wikipedia)
Wikipedia does not need to take any action to disable FLoC; it's only active if the site opts in, on a per-pageview basis:
* If you call document.interestCohort() to get a FLoC id for a user, that pageview will be included in FLoC calculation.
* For the origin trial, to deal with the chicken-and-egg problem, a pageview is included you load ads (determined with EasyList)
(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)
> Disclosure: I work on ads at Google
Can I ask why? I honestly can't understand how anyone could.
I think advertising is positive [1] and the role of ads in funding freely-available sites is very important. My current work is primarily on how browsers can allow more private and secure advertising [2][3][4] which I think most people will agree is valuable even if they are less in favor of advertising in general.
At a lower level, I do this job because I'm paid, which allows me to donate. [5] But I wouldn't do this work if I thought it was harmful; there are lots of different kinds of jobs I could take.
[1] https://www.jefftk.com/p/effect-of-advertising
[2] https://github.com/google/fledge-shim
[3] https://github.com/WICG/turtledove/issues/161
> I think advertising is positive [1]
That link only works if we buy into the premise: "One way to think about this is, what would the world would be like if we didn't allow advertising? No internet ads, TV ads, magazine ads, affiliate links, sponsored posts, product placement, everything."
However, no. I don't buy that premise at all. The state of ads as it is now is actively harmful with very little to show for in terms of "new non-stickier products" etc.
Yeah, the all-or-nothing approach is pretty hard to buy into.
What about ads, but static and not-tracking? Is that still equally negative? Is that still equally positive?
Coincidentally, my current project involves this Chrome proposal for supporting self-contained remarketing ads without individual tracking: https://github.com/WICG/turtledove