9 ms·

So if I understand this correctly, then killing off 3rd party cookies is anti-competitive, leaving them in is anti-privacy, and putting out a privacy-enhancing

• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Perhaps it's time to recognize that the company simply need not exist in it's present form. If Google was required to spin off Chrome as an independent company, there would be no antitrust issue, and privacy protections Chrome made would not also include anti-privacy features designed to feed Google's ad business. The reality is, Google needs to be broken up. Every fine they get makes that clear.
  • albertgoeswoof 6y ago
    How would chrome survive as a business?
    • tehlike 6y ago
      By auctioning the default search engine slot.
      • greatzebu 6y ago
        Wouldn't that make them entirely beholden to search engines that rely on ad revenue to pay Chrome? It doesn't seem to change the underlying incentives very much.
        • asiando 6y ago
          Doesn’t that already happen? Chrome currently survives thanks to advertising either way. Splitting Google would just make it a little more indirect.
        • rurp 6y ago
          I'd say there's a big difference between having one primary customer and literally being owned by that customer. I would bet that a significant part Chrome's development is built around feeding data to other parts of Google, which would be more difficult and less appealing as a separate company. Plus, there's no rule that says a browser has to get most of its revenue from selling Google Search placement. That just happens to be the case for the single independent browser that exists right now, one which isn't exactly renowned for great business leadership. I think if the Chrome team had a reason to explore self sustaining revenue models there's a good chance they would come up with some solid innovations.
        • fabianhjr 6y ago
          It currently is completelly owned by Google (Alphabet) so your comment would be more of a "there is a possibility that they would end up still relying on Google's ad revenue".
    • kevingadd 6y ago
      How did Mozilla survive as a business? Why is Brave around?
      • tehlike 6y ago
        Brave is terrible example. Brave is vc funded or ICO funded. Mozilla depends on donations and selling the search engine slot.
      • izacus 6y ago
        Mozilla is financed directly by Google. Brave is injecting their own ads into websites. Not really the best examples.
        • NeutronStar 6y ago
          What's to prevent chrome from being financed by google the search engine the same way Firefox is financed by Google the search engine?
        • seaman1921 6y ago
          Honestly several of these guys just want to promote 'break google up' every chance they get just because it makes them feel good - without understanding how bad the consequences would be.
          • neolog 6y ago
            What would the bad consequences be?
            • sdenton4 6y ago
              One example: The road from security to revenue is a bit windy. So suppose chrome gets a revenue crunch after getting spun off, and lays off a bunch of the security group. Well, it turns out that security group is actually handling security for ALL of the browsers, because security is expensive, and none of the browsers are really making money, and chrome is open source. So now you've got reduced security in all of the browsers. Whoops?
    • josefx 6y ago
      How would Linux kernel development survive as a business?
      • geofft 6y ago
        Linux kernel development survives because its biggest users develop it. It's certainly possible for a browser to survive that way, but Konqueror doesn't seem to be terribly successful.
        • throwaway3699 6y ago
          It's also worth thinking that many of those big users are also the very adtech companies people are hating on here, but for some reason it's fine to fund kernels and not web browsers with ads.
          • josefx 6y ago
            It would be interesting to know if Google engineers regularly commit kernel patches breaking Microsoft's Azure integration while pushing people to Google cloud.
      • ilammy 6y ago
        It survives because GPL forces it to be performed in the open, in a cooperative manner. This is not the case with browsers. Both Linux kernel and web browsers are arguably too huge now to be even maintained entirely by a single organization, let alone to be developed from scratch by one. Linux being under GPL kinda forces cooperation between businesses for their business needs, if they are going to tweak Linux. With browsers are you under impression that you can just fork Chromium maintained by someone else and then just add your business value for you alone to reap.
    • ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      As the window 70% of people access the Internet through globally, Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. Arguably, being part of Google hurts it, because it has to fit into Google's ideal business strategy.
      • vlovich123 6y ago
        So they’d be Firefox & wholly dependent on Google for search revenue money (I.e. ad money) anyway? Firefox already gets a lot of flack with their 3.65% & I don’t think that complaints about Chrome will stop if they’re still owning ~70% of browser market share with Google paying their bills. The only solution that would actually work is better regulation of the advertising space, but all advertisers (Google included) actively fight this. For example, ban governments from purchasing personal information without a warrant. Ban the sale of any/all personal information between companies - any personal information transferred should be gratis with at most nominal costs for the cost of the transfer itself. But then you might have to actually start paying for some services rather than everything being totally ad supported. Not to mention that governments, despite all their outcries about “privacy” and “evil corporations” love the status quo because of how easy it makes to invade your privacy without a warrant.
        • Izkata 6y ago
          > So they’d be Firefox & wholly dependent on Google for search revenue money (I.e. ad money) anyway? Not necessarily, its engine is now what powers Edge. Microsoft might support it.
      • johnmaguire2013 6y ago
        You mention nearly limitless options but fail to mention one. Can you give some examples?
        • throw_away 6y ago
          default search seems to be pretty lucrative.
        • 6y ago
    • mtnygard 6y ago
      Could go the same path as Brave: be a conduit for funding between consumer (me) and creator... then take a small percentage for facilitating the transactions.
    • ljm 6y ago
      Does it need to survive?
    • 3np 6y ago
      That it seems unlikely a browser that is not Chrome, vertically integrated by Google, could survive financially, is a good sign it need to happen imo
    • GlennS 6y ago
      I guess ideally either Chrome or Firefox would be organized as a charitable trust with an endowment, its stated mission to service users of the web, and the EFF given a permanent seat on its board of directors. How to get from here to there, I don't know.
      • jopsen 6y ago
        Firefox is owned by Mozilla Corp, owned by Mozilla Foundation, which is a non-profit -- and Mozilla has a sizable budget. > How to get from here to there, I don't know. You literally are there! Sure, it's easy to criticize Mozilla for having "wrong priorities", being "pragmatic about EME", Firefox OS, losing market share, etc. But simply saying a new board would fix things seems a bit naive.
    • gcblkjaidfj 6y ago
      > How would chrome survive as a business? by doing *exactly* what Google sued microsoft for trying to do with IE in the 90s. Isn't it funny?
  • patwolfe 6y ago
    Yup, when there is nothing a company can do in a situation to avoid anti-trust regulation, that is a pretty good indication anti-trust regulation should have already happened.
    • SerLava 6y ago
      Well said! I'm going to use this and other people should as well.
  • madrox 6y ago
    Playing devil's advocate, how is Google & Chrome different from, say, Apple & App Store? Thinking about iOS like a browser, arguably what Privacy Sandbox does is not that different from iOS 14's AppTrackingTransparency Framework. Both require the operator of the internals not to abuse their position for there to be fair play. The most generous thing I could say is that it feels different. However, Apple has a stronger hold on iOS than Google has on the web. On the web, at least you could switch to another browser to view the same content. Switching off iPhone requires a whole new ecosystem and hardware. I hope people who argue for a certain treatment of Google in this case are at least consistent in the Apple case.
    • ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      1. I think Apple wields a questionable monopoly with regards to the App Store. I think that they should be required to allow third party stores, at minimum, on the iPhone. I am very much hoping Epic wins their case here, and that we have a more open field on iOS in the future. 2. Apple's new privacy changes require that apps solicit user permission before doing any tracking. However, once the user has granted that, app developers are allowed to either use Apple's solution or their own.
    • curryst 6y ago
      > Thinking about iOS like a browser, arguably what Privacy Sandbox does is not that different from iOS 14's AppTrackingTransparency Framework Apple's AppTrackingTransparency Framework harms a market that Apple is not a part of. That specific action doesn't have any monopoly connotations in my mind because it solely benefited the product that was changed. There are no knock on effects where now Apple Maps is worth more. Also, in this case, the consumers that are harmed by Google's alleged monopoly are people who are buying ads, not people using Chrome. I don't do anything with ads, but the impression I got from other people is that it's much easier for a consumer to switch phones than it is for an advertiser to just not advertise with Google. I do think Apple has monopoly issues, I just don't think ATT is part of it. That was a legitimate response to consumer demand for privacy.
  • summerlight 6y ago
    Firefox is completely an independent entity from Google and the reality is that they needed to accept the manifest v3 because their survival entirely depends on Google's money. Why do you think the situation would be different from this if Chrome get broken up from Google?
• morelisp 6y ago
  It's a good analogy - like oil, companies industry-wide should reduce their dependence on data, and companies that still deal in it should be prepared to deal with heightened legal scrutiny and additional restrictions.
  • r00fus 6y ago
    It's all allowed because of Clinton-era bill that legalized data collection in the first place. Can you imagine? Before that, databases of metadata couldn't be copyrighted without getting consent for the owners of said information. Perhaps we should our digital ethics going back to basics - corporations shouldn't have a "right" to own data that doesn't belong to them.
• MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  I'm reminded of a snarky libertarian quip: > If a big company charges more than the competition, they say they're illegally abusing their monopoly. > If a big company charges the same as the competition, they say it's illegal collusion. > If a big company charges less than the competition, they say it's illegal price-dumping.
  • kevingadd 6y ago
    This seems like it overlooks the obvious possibility of things that don't fall into any of those three categories...
    • MaxBarraclough 6y ago
      Sure, it's just a silly quip, I'm not saying it's watertight.
    • sidibe 6y ago
      So being a small company?
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• awalton 6y ago
  > Is there anything that can be done that would satisfy all regulations? We could go back to having advertisements be relevant to the content audience instead of the specific viewer and end stalkerware for good. Crazy talk, I know...
• coliveira 6y ago
  You're right, everything they do is illegal because it is an illegal monopoly that needs to be broken up.
• Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  No. The reason Google is killing third party cookies in Chrome (I firmly believe) is because Google—and only Google—doesn't need cookies to track you. Google owns the browser. If Google was killing third party cookies in Chrome while also removing other tracking features, regulators wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But back in the real world, they are absolutely correct to see through Google's BS.
• contravariant 6y ago
  I think you're slightly off on that first one. Killing 3rs party cookies isn't anti-competitive, in fact I'd argue any decent browser should do it to protect their users' privacy. What is possibly anti-competitive is their proposed alternative. And frankly I'm not sold on the supposed privacy of such an alternative either (which, in order to be functionally different from 3rd party cookies, will have to store personal identifying information in a location that users cannot access, edit and/or control). Note also that (to my knowledge) browsers are not currently obligated to protect their users' privacy (though perhaps they should be, it makes more sense than punishing websites for sending cookies). This leaves google at least 2 completely legitimate options: 1. Keep 3rd party cookies. 2. Kill 3rd party cookies. Sure the first will cost them their privacy conscious users and the second might hurt their ad business, but rejecting that choice on the sole grounds that it would hurt the bottom line of a different venture is textbook anti-trust. They'll probably list other reasons for not taking that second option, though I've not found them terribly convincing so far.
  • jsnell 6y ago
    > Killing 3rs party cookies isn't anti-competitive The problem is that when it comes to determining what's anti-competitive, yours is not the opinion that matters. According to the article, multiple US states, a US House submicommitee believe it is anticompetitive and now a UK regulator is also investigating whether it is. This is not a hypothetical like you think. It is what the people in power actually are on record about. Your option 2 does not exist. Just full stop. So we're left with the idea that every other browser in the world can improve privacy, but not the one that most people use. Do you seriously not see how fucked up that is? Why do you want to build up this garbage narrative about how it's not the fault of the authorities?
    • contravariant 6y ago
      I'm having some trouble following your argument. You seem to be accusing me of the thing I'm against on the basis that my opinion isn't the one that matters.
      • 6y ago
• Simulacra 6y ago
  In a word, no. Google and other corporate monoliths like it depend on data, as much as they can get, as personal as it can be, and pervasive as the air we breathe. Consumers want privacy, control over their data, and the power to say no. The only sensible middle ground is for Google and others to be up front about the data, what they do with it, where it goes, etc. and the consumer having the ability to say no. Unfortunately Google, etc. cannot back away from their position because they risk losing a market edge. Perhaps PAYING users for their data, that would be an interesting middle ground, but the shareholders of the monoliths would likely reject such a proposal.
  • victorhooi 6y ago
    I think you're projecting the HN crowd a bit here. The majority of normal people probably don't care as much about "privacy" as some of the vocal folks here do. I'm not making a value judgement on that, it's simply how it is. People want to use services like Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram or Google search/Gmail/Google Maps that have the functionality they enjoy. If those companies can show them targeted ads vs random useless ads, the majority of people seem to be fine with that tradeoff. I want it to be the year of the Linus desktop for a long while but I've made peace with the fact that's not the majority view. Most people are happy with a proprietary desktop that just works.
    • syshum 6y ago
      I think it is clear that the public cares about privacy but only when they are fully educated about what a given platform is doing. The public is not reading the privacy policies, or looking at the app permissions or do anything really to educate themselves on all the ways Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc are abusing their data But if a high profile news story comes out about some privacy issue they are outraged about it. This shows a education / knowledge gap, I dont know how to close it, or if it can even be closed but to say "no one cares about privacy" I believe is false
      • v7p1Qbt1im 6y ago
        The public cares about privacy, yes. But only as long as its presence doesn‘t inconvenience them in any way. People hate the GDPR pop ups. Most are badly designed (probably on purpose) and make it easy to accept all and difficult to customize/reject all. Most people are just going to click accept because it makes the box disappear faster. Let‘s say we have the new Apple opt-in rules for Facebook. There‘s a pop-up some day asking users: „do you want facebook to be able to track you?“ many people will say no. But only because it‘s really easy/frictionless and the app presumably functions as normal. So primarily users want to do want users want to do. They don‘t care about tracking/ads as long as avoiding them isn‘t completely simple.
• ogre_codes 6y ago
  Killing off 3rd party cookies is anti-competitive because Google has the means to continue tracking people without them. If Google didn't own something like 60% of the browser market, it would just be a privacy enhancement.
• eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago
  > needed to store oil above ground due to EPA regulations, but needed it stored underground to satisfy the fire department regulations. Did they try building tanks both above and below ground, connecting them with two pipes so there's a circle, and constantly pumping it along that circle so it is not stored anywhere but merely in transit through both areas?
• danudey 6y ago
  The claim that killing 3rd party cookies is anti-competitive is some Marketing Company Bullshit. A group in France is also suing Apple on antitrust grounds because they're going to ask users if they want to be tracked. What's actually anti-competitive is the idea that Google will kill them off and replace it with a solution which they control, forcing advertisers to deal with them and their ad products directly in order to do anything. Whether that's actually what's happening is another question entirely.
• mechnesium 6y ago
  Yes, eliminate cookies entirely. Let companies revert to relying on consumer feedback and word of mouth praise rather than cyberstalking.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]