7 ms·

I'm kinda happy they are doing it more and more. Just waiting for the last straw that breaks the camel's back.

ignoramous 6y ago
I'm afraid the lobby money will keep buying them extra straws.
tupputuppu 6y ago
This isn't the highly visible anticompetitive behavior which might cause a backlash. Regular people, or even journalists or judges won't even understand what cookie clearing on exit means. If there's antitrust sentiments towards Google, it needs to come from some where else.
- nojito 6y ago
  Chrome is one thing the DOJ is using to push its case against Google. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/10/feds-may-target-googles-chrome-browser-for-breakup-428468 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/10/feds-may-target-goo...
- feanaro 6y ago
  On the other hand, a corporation cannot be allowed to continue its anti-competitive practice just because the subject is too complex for an average person to comprehend. Techology isn't going away and is becoming ever more important. It seems obvious to me that we will need cross-domain specialists to handle cases such as this in the future -- someone with both a legal and computer science background.
  - walterbell 6y ago
    From https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/learn/ma/ https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/learn/ma/ & https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/learn/ma/jdma-program/ https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/learn/ma/jdma-program/ > Many of the most important challenges confronting the legal profession lie at the intersection of science, technology, law, and policy. Emerging science and technologies, such as AI, big data, social media, genomics, and neuroscience, demand an interdisciplinary approach and visionary leadership. Students in the JD/MA in Bioethics and Science Policy program spend their three years at Duke focusing on these intersectional problems and preparing themselves for a seat at the table in these discussions for decades to come and earn an additional degree while doing so.
  - bofenbref 6y ago
    This is something I've often called a retreat into complexity. Classic example: food corpo gets flak for putting something nasty into their products. They then switch to using an alternative that's just as harmful, just with harder to spot effects.
    - feanaro 6y ago
      > This is something I've often called a retreat into complexity. Thanks, I'm using this from now on.
- fauigerzigerk 6y ago
  I disagree. This sort of double standard is a very clear-cut and easy to understand case of abusing a dominant market position. I wager that Google will be very quick to declare this a bug and fix it ASAP.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Yep, though specifically because it’s harming Google’s competition rather than users.
  - cpeterso 6y ago
    Here's what Google said when this same "Clear all Cookies except Google Cookies" issue happened back in 2018: https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/product-updates-based-your-feedback/ https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/product-updates-base... This 2018 CNET article has more details: https://www.cnet.com/news/google-promises-chrome-changes-after-privacy-complaints/ https://www.cnet.com/news/google-promises-chrome-changes-aft...
- ezoe 6y ago
  Although politicians and the court does not understand the cookie, That doesn't mean we won't have a backlash. It just doesn't guarantee the backlash is technologically sound. EU's cookie law, for example, is just stupid from the pure technical standpoint. It's your computer that store a cookie to local storage. It's your computer that decide to send back previously stored cookie. And they're crying like they don't have a consent.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - lima 6y ago
    > It's your computer that store a cookie to local storage. It's your computer that decide to send back previously stored cookie. And they're crying like they don't have a consent. Fortunately, EU regulators understand that non-technical users exist and need protection from abuse.
  - QasimK 6y ago
    Except your computer doesn’t know what the purpose of a cookie is, in order to decide what to do with any particular cookie. Neither does the user, not by themselves anyway. Only the website knows really.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Antitrust action against Google is much more likely to come from the EU than from the US.
- Zak 6y ago
  People understand perfectly well when you abstract it by one level: Google's web browser ignore's some of the user's privacy settings on sites Google owns.
- walterbell 6y ago
  > Regular people, or even journalists or judges won't even understand what cookie clearing on exit means. It's been almost 30 years since the Cypherpunks. When billions of dollars or existential business threats are at stake, regular people are motivated to find a technically-knowledgeable peer for advice. There have now been several generations of financially successful tech entrepreneurs, some of whom move in non-tech circles.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
a_imho 6y ago
There were plenty of last straws. The missing piece is a powerful enough entity that has interest in regulating them. No, despite the GDPR the EU is not that.
- DarkmSparks 6y ago
  This actually seems to me like a fairly blatant breach of multiple important aspects of GDPR on the part of google.com and youtube.com Are there not serious fines for companies saying they opted you out of this kind of data collection and then not actually abiding by your requests? France Sweden and the UK is already in on that action, Im sure others will follow.
  - a_imho 6y ago
    Exactly, compared to what could be the maximum fine, there are no high profile cases. This is the point, GDPR is as useful as much as it is enforced, which is lackluster at best. We are not talking about a one off, for example Google has been continuously violating GDPR for years at this point.
- xxpor 6y ago
  GDPR entrenches big tech. Costly regulation always benefits the incumbents.
swalsh 6y ago
Combined with the latest twitter bout of censorship, the hammer is going to hit tech soon... very hard. They are running out of friends on both the left and right.
- peteretep 6y ago
  What are some ways in which Twitter is anti-competitive or acting like a monopoly?
  - stevehawk 6y ago
    twitter isn't doing those, they're losing friends through censorship. which they legally have every right to, but the powers that be are now campaigning to change that legal protection (exemption? sinve no one understands the second amendment)
    - trident1000 6y ago
      They have every right to do it legally and you're right that the rules will probably change. People say "just go and make another platform" but Google literally tried and failed to make their own (Google+). If they cant do it who really can? Its not happening or it will take centuries/enormous resources to gain traction and compete. So we are left with an oligopoly that is censoring in lockstep and that's an issue for all sides because eventually its not them, its you, with time (amongst other issues). I think the platforms are a huge threat to democracy personally and I hope the new rules are meaningful and not just a knee jerk makeshift reaction.
      - johannes1234321 6y ago
        That argument of "just go and make another platform" is misled anyways: Even if I build another platform: Twitter is still the primary communication channel of the US President. Which means that all secondary users (interested citizens, journalists, ...) hang out there as well. Thus whoever they block there or not has an impact, even if my competitor has a few hundred million users.
WilTimSon 6y ago
I'm, sadly, not so sure that straw will come any time soon. Major tech companies have been under fire for years now and nothing managed to break them. Not saying it'll never happen but monumental shifts like that can take decades to pass.
whydoineedone 6y ago
I think that’s the reason they’re doing it; they realize it’s just a matter of time before regulation comes so they’re throwing caution to the winds until then to maximize profit
wdn 6y ago
As long as the political "contributions" still flowing into the right politicians, you can bet if there is any change, it will be adding more regulation that is too expensive for small players comply.

I'm afraid the lobby money will keep buying them extra straws.

This isn't the highly visible anticompetitive behavior which might cause a backlash. Regular people, or even journalists or judges won't even understand what cookie clearing on exit means. If there's antitrust sentiments towards Google, it needs to come from some where else.

nojito 6y ago
Chrome is one thing the DOJ is using to push its case against Google. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/10/feds-may-target-googles-chrome-browser-for-breakup-428468 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/10/feds-may-target-goo...
feanaro 6y ago
On the other hand, a corporation cannot be allowed to continue its anti-competitive practice just because the subject is too complex for an average person to comprehend. Techology isn't going away and is becoming ever more important. It seems obvious to me that we will need cross-domain specialists to handle cases such as this in the future -- someone with both a legal and computer science background.
- walterbell 6y ago
  From https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/learn/ma/ https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/learn/ma/ & https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/learn/ma/jdma-program/ https://scienceandsociety.duke.edu/learn/ma/jdma-program/ > Many of the most important challenges confronting the legal profession lie at the intersection of science, technology, law, and policy. Emerging science and technologies, such as AI, big data, social media, genomics, and neuroscience, demand an interdisciplinary approach and visionary leadership. Students in the JD/MA in Bioethics and Science Policy program spend their three years at Duke focusing on these intersectional problems and preparing themselves for a seat at the table in these discussions for decades to come and earn an additional degree while doing so.
- bofenbref 6y ago
  This is something I've often called a retreat into complexity. Classic example: food corpo gets flak for putting something nasty into their products. They then switch to using an alternative that's just as harmful, just with harder to spot effects.
  - feanaro 6y ago
    > This is something I've often called a retreat into complexity. Thanks, I'm using this from now on.
fauigerzigerk 6y ago
I disagree. This sort of double standard is a very clear-cut and easy to understand case of abusing a dominant market position. I wager that Google will be very quick to declare this a bug and fix it ASAP.
- Retric 6y ago
  Yep, though specifically because it’s harming Google’s competition rather than users.
- cpeterso 6y ago
  Here's what Google said when this same "Clear all Cookies except Google Cookies" issue happened back in 2018: https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/product-updates-based-your-feedback/ https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/product-updates-base... This 2018 CNET article has more details: https://www.cnet.com/news/google-promises-chrome-changes-after-privacy-complaints/ https://www.cnet.com/news/google-promises-chrome-changes-aft...
ezoe 6y ago
Although politicians and the court does not understand the cookie, That doesn't mean we won't have a backlash. It just doesn't guarantee the backlash is technologically sound. EU's cookie law, for example, is just stupid from the pure technical standpoint. It's your computer that store a cookie to local storage. It's your computer that decide to send back previously stored cookie. And they're crying like they don't have a consent.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- lima 6y ago
  > It's your computer that store a cookie to local storage. It's your computer that decide to send back previously stored cookie. And they're crying like they don't have a consent. Fortunately, EU regulators understand that non-technical users exist and need protection from abuse.
- QasimK 6y ago
  Except your computer doesn’t know what the purpose of a cookie is, in order to decide what to do with any particular cookie. Neither does the user, not by themselves anyway. Only the website knows really.
jacquesm 6y ago
Antitrust action against Google is much more likely to come from the EU than from the US.
Zak 6y ago
People understand perfectly well when you abstract it by one level: Google's web browser ignore's some of the user's privacy settings on sites Google owns.
walterbell 6y ago
> Regular people, or even journalists or judges won't even understand what cookie clearing on exit means. It's been almost 30 years since the Cypherpunks. When billions of dollars or existential business threats are at stake, regular people are motivated to find a technically-knowledgeable peer for advice. There have now been several generations of financially successful tech entrepreneurs, some of whom move in non-tech circles.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

a_imho 6y ago

There were plenty of last straws. The missing piece is a powerful enough entity that has interest in regulating them. No, despite the GDPR the EU is not that.

DarkmSparks 6y ago
This actually seems to me like a fairly blatant breach of multiple important aspects of GDPR on the part of google.com and youtube.com Are there not serious fines for companies saying they opted you out of this kind of data collection and then not actually abiding by your requests? France Sweden and the UK is already in on that action, Im sure others will follow.
- a_imho 6y ago
  Exactly, compared to what could be the maximum fine, there are no high profile cases. This is the point, GDPR is as useful as much as it is enforced, which is lackluster at best. We are not talking about a one off, for example Google has been continuously violating GDPR for years at this point.
xxpor 6y ago
GDPR entrenches big tech. Costly regulation always benefits the incumbents.

swalsh 6y ago

Combined with the latest twitter bout of censorship, the hammer is going to hit tech soon... very hard. They are running out of friends on both the left and right.

peteretep 6y ago
What are some ways in which Twitter is anti-competitive or acting like a monopoly?
- stevehawk 6y ago
  twitter isn't doing those, they're losing friends through censorship. which they legally have every right to, but the powers that be are now campaigning to change that legal protection (exemption? sinve no one understands the second amendment)
  - trident1000 6y ago
    They have every right to do it legally and you're right that the rules will probably change. People say "just go and make another platform" but Google literally tried and failed to make their own (Google+). If they cant do it who really can? Its not happening or it will take centuries/enormous resources to gain traction and compete. So we are left with an oligopoly that is censoring in lockstep and that's an issue for all sides because eventually its not them, its you, with time (amongst other issues). I think the platforms are a huge threat to democracy personally and I hope the new rules are meaningful and not just a knee jerk makeshift reaction.
    - johannes1234321 6y ago
      That argument of "just go and make another platform" is misled anyways: Even if I build another platform: Twitter is still the primary communication channel of the US President. Which means that all secondary users (interested citizens, journalists, ...) hang out there as well. Thus whoever they block there or not has an impact, even if my competitor has a few hundred million users.

WilTimSon 6y ago

I'm, sadly, not so sure that straw will come any time soon. Major tech companies have been under fire for years now and nothing managed to break them. Not saying it'll never happen but monumental shifts like that can take decades to pass.

whydoineedone 6y ago

I think that’s the reason they’re doing it; they realize it’s just a matter of time before regulation comes so they’re throwing caution to the winds until then to maximize profit

wdn 6y ago

As long as the political "contributions" still flowing into the right politicians, you can bet if there is any change, it will be adding more regulation that is too expensive for small players comply.