(Seriously though, I honestly think Google’s search engine would get better if it were split off from the parent company, and I think that Google’s web browser would also get better if it were a separate enterprise.)

But one of the advantages of having a huge share of the browser market is that Chrome can just plough ahead and unilaterily implement whatever it wants even if there’s no consensus from other browser makers.

Remember that Safari is the only real browser on iOS so unless FLoC is implemented by Apple, third parties can’t reach those people …unless those third parties use fingerprinting instead.

The owner of the Daily Mail newspaper and MailOnline website is suing Google over allegations the search engine manipulates search results.

He suggested that the Daily Mail's search visibility dropped after using online advertising techniques "which were allowing us to divert advertising traffic away from Google to other ad exchanges, which paid better prices - and this was their punishment".

The Daily Mail itself authorises dozens of ad tech companies to sell and manage their ad space, including Amazon, Verizon and more.

Google argues that conscripting the browser for ad interest tracking is a win for privacy, since it keeps your exact browsing history local and only serves up anonymized interest lists.

The Vivaldi browser also has a blog post (and the above graphic) detailing why it won't support FLoC, saying "Google's new data harvesting venture is nasty" and "a dangerous step that harms user privacy."

DuckDuckGo, one of Google's search engine rivals, has also come out against FLoC, and in addition to disabling it on the search pages, has released a Chrome extension that blocks FLoC tracking across the web.