5 ms·
I think this is an easy move for Google, it's a "strategy credit" as Ben Thompson would put it. Google already knows most of what it needs about you, and it wi
by zpeti 7y ago
I think this is an easy move for Google, it's a "strategy credit" as Ben Thompson would put it.
Google already knows most of what it needs about you, and it will in the future from searches. It has no motivation to allow 3rd parties help in tracking visitors. This way it can build a moat around its business while pretending to care about privacy. It's bullshit.
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y agoSo... let anyone who wants to keep tracking us without our material consent or knowledge? No thanks.
- zpeti 7y agoIf you want to use chrome, be aware of the company’s underlying motivations. But I’d recommend not using it at all, I don’t.
- wtetzner 7y agoGoogle's reason for wanting this is bullshit, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a beneficial move in general.
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoThe beneficial move would be for Chrome to accept the industry-standard choice of letting users easily block all tracking and fingerprinting... including Google's. But that wouldn't be good for Google. This is the exact reason an ad company should not be allowed to own a web browser.
- IAmEveryone 7y agoBut... they are going to not just allow users, but per default, block 3rd party cookies? Edit: comment was either edited, or I’m going senile. In any case: Chrome does allow blocking all cookies as well, and has from the first release. Fingerprinting isn’t easily avoided, but they have taken some steps to make it harder.
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoIt's edited, sorry! I felt it was important to clarify that the general Privacy Sandbox concept they are promoting is designed and built around allowing data collection about users that can be used for ad targeting, whether it utilizes third party cookies explicitly or not. Note that blocking all cookies breaks the web, blocking third party cookies breaks adtech. It's important to note that even if Chrome has supported the former, it has resisted implementing the latter. Meanwhile, Firefox, Edge, and Safari have chosen to implement tracking prevention, which has the goal of preventing any ad targeting towards a given user.
- m0zg 7y agoExactly. Google's real interest here is in making the lives of its many competitors _much_ harder. I'm fine with that though. Ads will become more expensive, so there presumably will be fewer of them. Not that I'd know, I've been using adblock everywhere for the past decade.
- shostack 7y agoFewer, more expensive ads are preferable in some cases. It tends to push out bottom feeding advertisers and leads to higher quality ads from bigger brands. It also allows for fewer ad placements which can sometimes be more profitable if it sufficiently improves user engagement and stickiness.
- Jweb_Guru 7y agoI was just thinking the other day that if there's one thing I want more of, it's more consolidation around the largest corporations in the world.
- supernovae 7y agoYeah, for the life of me, I can't see this as a good thing. Sounds like a black mirror story.