9 ms·

> A major antitrust report that the House Judiciary Committee released this week found that Chrome’s market share allows Google to “effectively set standards fo

> A major antitrust report that the House Judiciary Committee released this week found that Chrome’s market share allows Google to “effectively set standards for the industry,” an issue of particular relevance as Chrome phases out cookies. HN is full of creative thinkers. Someone should figure a way to get gorhill before the committee so he can explain what ublock origin does and how Google has been trying to destroy it in the name of "efficiency." I'm not sure exactly how to frame blocking all the goddamned ads in a conversation about Google monopolizing all the goddamned ads. But senators and their staffers should know about blockers and be using one on all their machines.

kjaftaedi 6y ago
Interesting they want to phase out cookies given how hostile they are to people that browse without them. If you go to youtube without cookies, your video starts playing. Then it stops and you get a popup asking if you want to sign in. You click no, then it rewinds your video.. then you have to click play and re-watch the part you already watched. Every video. Even google as a search engine becomes a less attractive option when you have to agree to their 50 page long privacy policy every time you search for something.
- Mindless2112 6y ago
  Why not use Cookie AutoDelete? Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autode... Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cookie-autodelete/fhcgjolkccmbidfldomjliifgaodjagh?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cookie-autodelete/...
  - luckylion 6y ago
    That's what's doing it: you'll effectively get to Youtube without a cookie and be harassed. It's a strange thing. It's so annoying that I've essentially given up Youtube. I don't care enough about the videos that I want to Login and whitelist (and have a profile recorded) the site, and this makes the experience bad. Ergo YT is fading from my life. Can't say that I miss it all that much after a few days, it has been a habit more so than something I actively enjoy.
    - Mindless2112 6y ago
      Okay, I thought "without cookies" was referring to having cookies disabled. I use Cookie AutoDelete and YouTube doesn't give me any problems for discarding its cookies. But maybe one of the uBlock Origin annoyance filter lists I use is taking care of the nag screen.
    - sneak 6y ago
      I’m making a dedicated Google account/browser profile for YT this week as I prepare to delete my main, ten+ year old Google account. It’s the last/only thing I actually need Google cookies for (outside of work/gsuite which is a different machine entirely).
  - usr1106 6y ago
    I use Cookie AutoDelete (I use only Firefox, but that is irrelevant in this context.) Deleting all cookies (one could also use white^Hallow lists) works 98% fine. The problem is local storage. Pages can store the same (and more) information as in cookies in local storage. There is no add-on API to manipulate local storage. At the moment only an estimated 2% of all web sites use local storage to store tracking information. But if cookies get widely ignored/deleted, I am sure that will change.
    - afwe 6y ago
      I share your concern, but CAD has claimed to be able to wipe localStorage, IndexedDB and Service Workers for some time (a few months?). Check the settings screen of CAD and see for yourself.
    - throwaway2048 6y ago
      Cookie autodelete can also delete LocalStorage, at least on firefox. https://imgur.com/cPDJW3v.png https://imgur.com/cPDJW3v.png
    - usr1106 6y ago
      I stand corrected, there is some support. It is not container-aware and no allow lists are possible. Everything gets deleted. Probably because of these limitations it's off by default. I seemed to have remembered some older arguments in this discussion: https://github.com/Cookie-AutoDelete/Cookie-AutoDelete/issues/44 https://github.com/Cookie-AutoDelete/Cookie-AutoDelete/issue...
      - throwaway2048 6y ago
        everything gets deleted when you first enable it, its still site specific afterwards https://imgur.com/vmnozjV.png https://imgur.com/vmnozjV.png
- Yoric 6y ago
  I'm deleting cookies whenever I quit Firefox (which is ~once per day, as I'm using Nightly). I don't really have these problems.
  - cm2187 6y ago
    I use firefox with cookies being cleared on every session and I get exactly the same behaviour described by the parent post. You may want to check whether your cookies are actually cleared.
    - thewebcount 6y ago
      Weird. I use it in Safari in private mode and have never experienced these issues. Looking at my cookies, I have no google or YouTube cookies on my machine.
- nmadden 6y ago
  It’s only 3rd-party cookies, right?
- sergeykish 6y ago
  How and where? I block cookies with uMatrix and I've never seen it. Just checked - Chromium, allow all but cookies. That said I usually browse youtube with minimal setup * * * block * * frame block * 1st-party css allow * 1st-party frame allow * 1st-party image allow youtube.com 1st-party script allow youtube.com 1st-party xhr allow youtube.com googlevideo.com xhr allow youtube.com ytimg.com image allow
morpheuskafka 6y ago
Considering the main economic interests against Google here are ad companies or companies that also source revenue from online ads, that's not gonna fly. This is just a game between economic rivals, no one cares about consumers' privacy or not seeing obnoxious ads.
- olliej 6y ago
  We do however care when the competition is not fair - as is the case when the indisputably dominating browser it shipped by the indisputably dominating ad company. The browser monopoly is used to benefit their ad monopoly, while also adding features design to cripple the tracking by other ad companies. That’s the exact type of behaviour that antitrust laws are intended to stop. Seriously the only reason there is any non-google decisions about web apis is mobile safari.
- jancsika 6y ago
  I'd venture to guess most of those senators have never experienced what it's like to browse the web or watch youtube without ads. The cost to programmers of interacting with people who aren't also programmers is apparently very high.
m463 6y ago
I suspect that in a few years it will not matter. Google has enough might to fix this and nobody could compete. All google needs is to have sites talk via a backend connection to google - no adblocker could fix that - and it could train AI backend supercookies based on your behavior. You could be indentified at key points and it could pick you vs your spouse or kids all on the same ip address all contacting multiple sites and know it is you. Current CDNs already do some of this backend tracking. People think that CDNs are about caching content for faster load times. What is actually happening is that they are individually identifying people in an unblockable unstoppable way across multiple sites and compiling data on the backend. Seriously, look at any cdn request. Maybe stack overflow maybe steam. anything with edgecast or akamai* (especially akamaihd) or fastly or more. you are being identified and tracked. google could take this all the way where others couldn't.
- Yoric 6y ago
  Agreed on the fact that Google could definitely do that. I'd be surprised if they didn't have at least one person working on such a solution as a backup plan. > Seriously, look at any cdn request. Maybe stack overflow maybe steam. anything with edgecast or akamai* (especially akamaihd) or fastly or more. you are being identified and tracked. Do you have sources on that? I mean, technologically, it's feasible, but I have never heard of CDN providers actually doing it.
  - m463 6y ago
    I have had friends who have worked at CDNs. but just look at wikipedia: > CDN providers profit either from direct fees paid by content providers using their network, or profit from the user analytics and tracking data collected as their scripts are being loaded onto customer's websites inside their browser origin. As such these services are being pointed out as potential privacy intrusion for the purpose of behavioral targeting and solutions are being created to restore single-origin serving and caching of resources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network#Security_and_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network#Secur...
    - 6y ago
threatofrain 6y ago
> That criticism escalated in January, when Google said it would phase out the use of third-party cookies in its Chrome browser within two years to enhance consumer privacy. But cookies — small files a browser uses to track visits to websites — are also a key tool for publishers to demonstrate the effectiveness of advertising campaigns to ad buyers. Congress wants more ads...
dsr_ 6y ago
"a way to get gorhill before the committee" Write an email to your reps. All of them are listed here: https://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.htm https://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.htm Their staffers will respond with a nice form letter, but if you identify yourself as a constituent with specific professional knowledge and a suggestion like this about current hearings, stuff can happen.
- jancsika 6y ago
  Unfortunately my state doesn't have a rep on the committee.
  - dsr_ 6y ago
    Neither does mine. Not every task is available to everyone; maybe there's some other legislation that you have a strong opinion on?
  - ian-g 6y ago
    You could probably call the committee reps anyway as someone with professional knowledge but no direct representative on it
syshum 6y ago
>>>gorhill before the committee so I 100% could be wrong, but I image that bigger battle would be getting gorhill to agree to go before the committee in the first place....
- markawesome 6y ago
  Because at that point the fake conspiracy would be uncovered entirely. First, Google devs made it clear their API changes intention isn't removing ad blocking. UBlock Origin still works fine on Chrome and Chromium. Safari has in fact done more to limit ad blocking than the supposed attempt by Google, which hasn't even happened because it is fake news.
  - dannyw 6y ago
    With a pitiful cap on rules, if I enable every list today I’m already over the limit. And the web is only getting bigger.
    - markawesome 6y ago
      There are no cap on rules currently.
  - syshum 6y ago
    No, more that gorhill is private person, privacy is is the entire point of the plugin Normally Private people have no desire to subject themselves to publicity of a Congressional hearing. Some people would find it an "honor" but many people (including myself) would not, and would have no desire to go in front of congress for any reason

kjaftaedi 6y ago

Interesting they want to phase out cookies given how hostile they are to people that browse without them. If you go to youtube without cookies, your video starts playing. Then it stops and you get a popup asking if you want to sign in. You click no, then it rewinds your video.. then you have to click play and re-watch the part you already watched. Every video. Even google as a search engine becomes a less attractive option when you have to agree to their 50 page long privacy policy every time you search for something.

Mindless2112 6y ago
Why not use Cookie AutoDelete? Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autodelete/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-autode... Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cookie-autodelete/fhcgjolkccmbidfldomjliifgaodjagh?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cookie-autodelete/...
- luckylion 6y ago
  That's what's doing it: you'll effectively get to Youtube without a cookie and be harassed. It's a strange thing. It's so annoying that I've essentially given up Youtube. I don't care enough about the videos that I want to Login and whitelist (and have a profile recorded) the site, and this makes the experience bad. Ergo YT is fading from my life. Can't say that I miss it all that much after a few days, it has been a habit more so than something I actively enjoy.
  - Mindless2112 6y ago
    Okay, I thought "without cookies" was referring to having cookies disabled. I use Cookie AutoDelete and YouTube doesn't give me any problems for discarding its cookies. But maybe one of the uBlock Origin annoyance filter lists I use is taking care of the nag screen.
  - sneak 6y ago
    I’m making a dedicated Google account/browser profile for YT this week as I prepare to delete my main, ten+ year old Google account. It’s the last/only thing I actually need Google cookies for (outside of work/gsuite which is a different machine entirely).
- usr1106 6y ago
  I use Cookie AutoDelete (I use only Firefox, but that is irrelevant in this context.) Deleting all cookies (one could also use white^Hallow lists) works 98% fine. The problem is local storage. Pages can store the same (and more) information as in cookies in local storage. There is no add-on API to manipulate local storage. At the moment only an estimated 2% of all web sites use local storage to store tracking information. But if cookies get widely ignored/deleted, I am sure that will change.
  - afwe 6y ago
    I share your concern, but CAD has claimed to be able to wipe localStorage, IndexedDB and Service Workers for some time (a few months?). Check the settings screen of CAD and see for yourself.
  - throwaway2048 6y ago
    Cookie autodelete can also delete LocalStorage, at least on firefox. https://imgur.com/cPDJW3v.png https://imgur.com/cPDJW3v.png
  - usr1106 6y ago
    I stand corrected, there is some support. It is not container-aware and no allow lists are possible. Everything gets deleted. Probably because of these limitations it's off by default. I seemed to have remembered some older arguments in this discussion: https://github.com/Cookie-AutoDelete/Cookie-AutoDelete/issues/44 https://github.com/Cookie-AutoDelete/Cookie-AutoDelete/issue...
    - throwaway2048 6y ago
      everything gets deleted when you first enable it, its still site specific afterwards https://imgur.com/vmnozjV.png https://imgur.com/vmnozjV.png
Yoric 6y ago
I'm deleting cookies whenever I quit Firefox (which is ~once per day, as I'm using Nightly). I don't really have these problems.
- cm2187 6y ago
  I use firefox with cookies being cleared on every session and I get exactly the same behaviour described by the parent post. You may want to check whether your cookies are actually cleared.
  - thewebcount 6y ago
    Weird. I use it in Safari in private mode and have never experienced these issues. Looking at my cookies, I have no google or YouTube cookies on my machine.
nmadden 6y ago
It’s only 3rd-party cookies, right?
sergeykish 6y ago
How and where? I block cookies with uMatrix and I've never seen it. Just checked - Chromium, allow all but cookies. That said I usually browse youtube with minimal setup * * * block * * frame block * 1st-party css allow * 1st-party frame allow * 1st-party image allow youtube.com 1st-party script allow youtube.com 1st-party xhr allow youtube.com googlevideo.com xhr allow youtube.com ytimg.com image allow

morpheuskafka 6y ago

Considering the main economic interests against Google here are ad companies or companies that also source revenue from online ads, that's not gonna fly. This is just a game between economic rivals, no one cares about consumers' privacy or not seeing obnoxious ads.

olliej 6y ago
We do however care when the competition is not fair - as is the case when the indisputably dominating browser it shipped by the indisputably dominating ad company. The browser monopoly is used to benefit their ad monopoly, while also adding features design to cripple the tracking by other ad companies. That’s the exact type of behaviour that antitrust laws are intended to stop. Seriously the only reason there is any non-google decisions about web apis is mobile safari.
jancsika 6y ago
I'd venture to guess most of those senators have never experienced what it's like to browse the web or watch youtube without ads. The cost to programmers of interacting with people who aren't also programmers is apparently very high.

m463 6y ago

I suspect that in a few years it will not matter. Google has enough might to fix this and nobody could compete. All google needs is to have sites talk via a backend connection to google - no adblocker could fix that - and it could train AI backend supercookies based on your behavior. You could be indentified at key points and it could pick you vs your spouse or kids all on the same ip address all contacting multiple sites and know it is you. Current CDNs already do some of this backend tracking. People think that CDNs are about caching content for faster load times. What is actually happening is that they are individually identifying people in an unblockable unstoppable way across multiple sites and compiling data on the backend. Seriously, look at any cdn request. Maybe stack overflow maybe steam. anything with edgecast or akamai* (especially akamaihd) or fastly or more. you are being identified and tracked. google could take this all the way where others couldn't.

Yoric 6y ago
Agreed on the fact that Google could definitely do that. I'd be surprised if they didn't have at least one person working on such a solution as a backup plan. > Seriously, look at any cdn request. Maybe stack overflow maybe steam. anything with edgecast or akamai* (especially akamaihd) or fastly or more. you are being identified and tracked. Do you have sources on that? I mean, technologically, it's feasible, but I have never heard of CDN providers actually doing it.
- m463 6y ago
  I have had friends who have worked at CDNs. but just look at wikipedia: > CDN providers profit either from direct fees paid by content providers using their network, or profit from the user analytics and tracking data collected as their scripts are being loaded onto customer's websites inside their browser origin. As such these services are being pointed out as potential privacy intrusion for the purpose of behavioral targeting and solutions are being created to restore single-origin serving and caching of resources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network#Security_and_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network#Secur...
  - 6y ago

threatofrain 6y ago

> That criticism escalated in January, when Google said it would phase out the use of third-party cookies in its Chrome browser within two years to enhance consumer privacy. But cookies — small files a browser uses to track visits to websites — are also a key tool for publishers to demonstrate the effectiveness of advertising campaigns to ad buyers. Congress wants more ads...

dsr_ 6y ago

"a way to get gorhill before the committee" Write an email to your reps. All of them are listed here: https://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.htm https://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.htm Their staffers will respond with a nice form letter, but if you identify yourself as a constituent with specific professional knowledge and a suggestion like this about current hearings, stuff can happen.

jancsika 6y ago
Unfortunately my state doesn't have a rep on the committee.
- dsr_ 6y ago
  Neither does mine. Not every task is available to everyone; maybe there's some other legislation that you have a strong opinion on?
- ian-g 6y ago
  You could probably call the committee reps anyway as someone with professional knowledge but no direct representative on it

syshum 6y ago

>>>gorhill before the committee so I 100% could be wrong, but I image that bigger battle would be getting gorhill to agree to go before the committee in the first place....

markawesome 6y ago
Because at that point the fake conspiracy would be uncovered entirely. First, Google devs made it clear their API changes intention isn't removing ad blocking. UBlock Origin still works fine on Chrome and Chromium. Safari has in fact done more to limit ad blocking than the supposed attempt by Google, which hasn't even happened because it is fake news.
- dannyw 6y ago
  With a pitiful cap on rules, if I enable every list today I’m already over the limit. And the web is only getting bigger.
  - markawesome 6y ago
    There are no cap on rules currently.
- syshum 6y ago
  No, more that gorhill is private person, privacy is is the entire point of the plugin Normally Private people have no desire to subject themselves to publicity of a Congressional hearing. Some people would find it an "honor" but many people (including myself) would not, and would have no desire to go in front of congress for any reason