3 ms·

Google's reason for wanting this is bullshit, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a beneficial move in general.

• ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  The 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 ago
    But... 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 ago
      It'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.