4 ms·

How did w3c get such power to “slap down” google. If users can’t access gmail / YouTube etc, they will be ignoring the w3c. Another workaround if google can’t

How did w3c get such power to “slap down” google. If users can’t access gmail / YouTube etc, they will be ignoring the w3c. Another workaround if google can’t try this in chrome (it can) do cookies on a google sub domain (yt.google.com etc)

dmitriid 5y ago
> If users can’t access gmail / YouTube etc, they will be ignoring the w3c. Are users unable to access gmail / YouTube etc now?
- random5634 5y ago
  Users will use / do what is required to access YT. Google could proxy through a google.com domain so same site cookies could be set, they could implement this in chrome and users would follow along
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    Once again: are users unable to access those sites now? Why would they not be able to access them if Google doesn't implement FPS?
    - random5634 5y ago
      Free products are generally supported by advertising. We are being told the W3C has “slapped down” googles attempts around FPS. I am making the point that if google comes up with a workaround to this “slap down” - users will follow - even if you and others are yelling “it’s not W3C”. That could be modifying chrome to allow this, it could be hosting things under one domain etc
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > Free products are generally supported by advertising. We are being told the W3C has “slapped down” googles attempts around FPS. You were talking about "If users can’t access gmail / YouTube etc, they will be ignoring the w3c". Now it's suddenly "free sites" and "advertising". And don't worry, advertising isn't going anywhere. > I am making the point that if google comes up with a workaround to this “slap down” - users will follow They will not come up with a "workaround", they will just implement it ignoring any objections. However, that's not the point. What was it about users not being able to access youtube etc.?
        random5634 5y ago
        Gmail and youtube are offered free to users. They are supported by advertising. This is not 'suddenly 'free sites' and 'advertising'" - this is how both of these sites have been from the beginning, adding paid options later. If the w3c somehow forced users to jump through hoops to allow google to advertise to them so they could access their youtube and their Gmail, they would jump through those hoops rather than lose access. That said, I'm not sure I even believe that W3C has actually been able to "slap down" Google - but we will see. Google, not the W3C makes the BY FAR most popular browser out there, and Microsoft has recently begun migrating ITS own users to, not away from chrome. Because we are having some definitional issues around the basics of how gmail and youtube function in terms of revenue models and user engagement I'm going to let this rest here on my side.
        dmitriid 5y ago
        > If the w3c somehow forced users to jump through hoops to allow google to advertise to them Why would users need to jump through any hoops to make advertising works? Users will do literally nothing. You are under false impression that not implementing FPS will somehow prevent advertising from working. No, it won't. > Because we are having some definitional issues around the basics of how gmail and youtube function in terms of revenue models and user engagement No idea what you mean by this statement. The only reason Google wants FPS is to have an easier way to continue tracking users across its properties. It already does that now without FPS, and, surprising no one except you, it doesn't hurt its advertising business in the least. They brought in 147 billion dollars in revenue from ads in 2020. That's 80% of Google's total revenue. Google and Google's free services will be just fine without FPS.
Daho0n 5y ago
Users can't ignore W3C. Browser makers can. This "feature" would open up for tracking using today's modern analysis systems with year 2000 privacy protections.
- random5634 5y ago
  And google hosting everything under a google.com domain wouldn’t?
  - Daho0n 5y ago
    But they don't and it wouldn't be an easy step.
    - random5634 5y ago
      Huh? Amazon put prime under amazon.com. The domain doesn't mean you have to use the same servers, google already just proxy and load balances behind their existing domains. They could easily redirect youtube.com to yt.google.com, or serve assets on youtube.com from yt.google.com if they want to have cross domain tracking.
- mwexler 5y ago
  I'm not sure I understand. In the year 2000, we let any domain get access to it's cookie. In this proposal, an entity can let domains it controls have access to a shared cookie, all others are still blocked. But fair point: if I am allowed to say that I have a "relationship" with eviltracker.com, then they could get the shared cookie... But it's easy to add requirements like ownership vs partnership, or purpose-based access, or other enhancements. So, not really as bad as you suggest, but true, some problem cases can arise.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > But it's easy to add requirements like ownership vs partnership Ah, yes. "Easy". How exactly do you envision that? - Is ownership/partnership info easily and immediately accessible? - Who is going to verify ownership/partnership info? - How is that applicable to First Party Sets? - LVMH owns at least 75 different brands. Even though it owns them, for all intents and purposes these are different legal entities and (especially under GDPR, CCPA and any other privacy law in existence) they cannot be treated as a single entity. - amazon.com and amazon.de are two separate legal entities with wildly different privacy requirements. Same goes to subdivisions in each of the 75 brands I mentioned for LVMH. and so on. Yes. Easy.

dmitriid 5y ago

> If users can’t access gmail / YouTube etc, they will be ignoring the w3c. Are users unable to access gmail / YouTube etc now?

random5634 5y ago
Users will use / do what is required to access YT. Google could proxy through a google.com domain so same site cookies could be set, they could implement this in chrome and users would follow along
- dmitriid 5y ago
  Once again: are users unable to access those sites now? Why would they not be able to access them if Google doesn't implement FPS?
  - random5634 5y ago
    Free products are generally supported by advertising. We are being told the W3C has “slapped down” googles attempts around FPS. I am making the point that if google comes up with a workaround to this “slap down” - users will follow - even if you and others are yelling “it’s not W3C”. That could be modifying chrome to allow this, it could be hosting things under one domain etc
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > Free products are generally supported by advertising. We are being told the W3C has “slapped down” googles attempts around FPS. You were talking about "If users can’t access gmail / YouTube etc, they will be ignoring the w3c". Now it's suddenly "free sites" and "advertising". And don't worry, advertising isn't going anywhere. > I am making the point that if google comes up with a workaround to this “slap down” - users will follow They will not come up with a "workaround", they will just implement it ignoring any objections. However, that's not the point. What was it about users not being able to access youtube etc.?
      - random5634 5y ago
        Gmail and youtube are offered free to users. They are supported by advertising. This is not 'suddenly 'free sites' and 'advertising'" - this is how both of these sites have been from the beginning, adding paid options later. If the w3c somehow forced users to jump through hoops to allow google to advertise to them so they could access their youtube and their Gmail, they would jump through those hoops rather than lose access. That said, I'm not sure I even believe that W3C has actually been able to "slap down" Google - but we will see. Google, not the W3C makes the BY FAR most popular browser out there, and Microsoft has recently begun migrating ITS own users to, not away from chrome. Because we are having some definitional issues around the basics of how gmail and youtube function in terms of revenue models and user engagement I'm going to let this rest here on my side.
        dmitriid 5y ago
        > If the w3c somehow forced users to jump through hoops to allow google to advertise to them Why would users need to jump through any hoops to make advertising works? Users will do literally nothing. You are under false impression that not implementing FPS will somehow prevent advertising from working. No, it won't. > Because we are having some definitional issues around the basics of how gmail and youtube function in terms of revenue models and user engagement No idea what you mean by this statement. The only reason Google wants FPS is to have an easier way to continue tracking users across its properties. It already does that now without FPS, and, surprising no one except you, it doesn't hurt its advertising business in the least. They brought in 147 billion dollars in revenue from ads in 2020. That's 80% of Google's total revenue. Google and Google's free services will be just fine without FPS.

Daho0n 5y ago

Users can't ignore W3C. Browser makers can. This "feature" would open up for tracking using today's modern analysis systems with year 2000 privacy protections.

random5634 5y ago
And google hosting everything under a google.com domain wouldn’t?
- Daho0n 5y ago
  But they don't and it wouldn't be an easy step.
  - random5634 5y ago
    Huh? Amazon put prime under amazon.com. The domain doesn't mean you have to use the same servers, google already just proxy and load balances behind their existing domains. They could easily redirect youtube.com to yt.google.com, or serve assets on youtube.com from yt.google.com if they want to have cross domain tracking.
mwexler 5y ago
I'm not sure I understand. In the year 2000, we let any domain get access to it's cookie. In this proposal, an entity can let domains it controls have access to a shared cookie, all others are still blocked. But fair point: if I am allowed to say that I have a "relationship" with eviltracker.com, then they could get the shared cookie... But it's easy to add requirements like ownership vs partnership, or purpose-based access, or other enhancements. So, not really as bad as you suggest, but true, some problem cases can arise.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > But it's easy to add requirements like ownership vs partnership Ah, yes. "Easy". How exactly do you envision that? - Is ownership/partnership info easily and immediately accessible? - Who is going to verify ownership/partnership info? - How is that applicable to First Party Sets? - LVMH owns at least 75 different brands. Even though it owns them, for all intents and purposes these are different legal entities and (especially under GDPR, CCPA and any other privacy law in existence) they cannot be treated as a single entity. - amazon.com and amazon.de are two separate legal entities with wildly different privacy requirements. Same goes to subdivisions in each of the 75 brands I mentioned for LVMH. and so on. Yes. Easy.