7 ms·

Safari and Firefox already block them by default, and Chrome is set to block them before 2022: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-chrome-cookies-third-party

Safari and Firefox already block them by default, and Chrome is set to block them before 2022: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-chrome-cookies-third-party-ads https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-chrome-cookies-third-... The FLoC proposal (and others) are happening now because of the coming cookiepocalypse.

jefftk 6y ago
The causality is more complex: Chrome's approach from the beginning was that they would remove third-party cookies and replace them with more private alternatives like FLoC: https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-path-towards.html https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-... (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  If we kill FLoC, my hope would be that Google still finds it untenable to backpedal on removing third party cookies... or that public awareness about Google's antiprivacy stance kills Chrome if they do backpedal. It's simple: We force Google to stop tracking us, or we stop using Google products.
  - jefftk 6y ago
    Chrome is not the only browser working on more advertising-specific APIs as more-private replacements for third-party cookies. For example, Edge is proposing PARAKEET [1] for remarketing, and Safari has implemented an initial conversion tracking API [2]. [1] https://github.com/WICG/privacy-preserving-ads/blob/main/Parakeet.md https://github.com/WICG/privacy-preserving-ads/blob/main/Par... [2] https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-attribution-for-the-web/ https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-att...
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      Yeah, I've heard of PARAKEET, and imagine concerns are quite similar to FLoC. Thankfully, Microsoft doesn't have the capability to push web standards, so as long as Google doesn't adopt it, we are good there. =) Apple's solution doesn't look like it provides user interests or demographics, does it?
      - jefftk 6y ago
        PARKEET is much more like Chrome's TURTLEDOVE/FLEDGE than it is like FLoC ;) There's a lot of cooperation here, and similar goals; I'm not sure why you think Microsoft and Google can't find an API they both like?
- danShumway 6y ago
  If Chrome wants to be the only browser with third-party cookies, they're welcome to, I suppose. Breaking down Chrome's dominance has to start somewhere, and having a straightforward, easily verifiable reputation as the single least private browser on the market is a decent start. I already know what the headlines from most sites will look like if Chrome decides to reverse course. If only Firefox was removing cookies, that would be a problem, because Chrome could just ignore them. But with Safari on board as well, and with the entire iOS market at stake for sites that try to ignore the policy... If Chrome doesn't remove third-party cookies, they will be the only browser anywhere not to do so. Chrome's original stance might have been conditional on finding a replacement, but I'm not sure they still have a choice at this point. I don't think Google is going to hand that selling point to Apple, and you're seeing yourself in these comments that a lot of the people following this issue didn't accept Chrome's original promise as conditional. And maybe Chrome is confident enough in their market position that they're willing to take that hit and they think it won't matter. Maybe they're even right. From my perspective, breaking Chrome's dominance on the web is a necessary thing that needs to happen eventually for the health of the web, so every time that Chrome makes their browser worse in a highly public way, that's a win. Remember that Firefox and Safari are already blocking the majority of third-party cookies online, and those browsers still work today, the web hasn't broken for them. So every year that Chrome spends delaying that deprecation is another year where people like me can point out that they're lagging behind literally the entire market on privacy.
  - jefftk 6y ago
    > If only Firefox was removing cookies, that would be a problem, because Chrome could just ignore them. But with Safari on board as well, and with the entire iOS market at stake for sites that try to ignore the policy. nit: Safari was ahead of Firefox here, with ITP 1.0 blocking most third-party cookies by default in 2017.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      Indeed, Apple's been at the forefront here. It's why I'm low key okay with the WebKit monopoly requirement on iOS, everyone has to deal with it. And the other minority browsers are also on board now. Edge and Brave and such are also preferring privacy-friendly default configurations.

jefftk 6y ago

The causality is more complex: Chrome's approach from the beginning was that they would remove third-party cookies and replace them with more private alternatives like FLoC: https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-path-towards.html https://blog.chromium.org/2020/01/building-more-private-web-... (Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
If we kill FLoC, my hope would be that Google still finds it untenable to backpedal on removing third party cookies... or that public awareness about Google's antiprivacy stance kills Chrome if they do backpedal. It's simple: We force Google to stop tracking us, or we stop using Google products.
- jefftk 6y ago
  Chrome is not the only browser working on more advertising-specific APIs as more-private replacements for third-party cookies. For example, Edge is proposing PARAKEET [1] for remarketing, and Safari has implemented an initial conversion tracking API [2]. [1] https://github.com/WICG/privacy-preserving-ads/blob/main/Parakeet.md https://github.com/WICG/privacy-preserving-ads/blob/main/Par... [2] https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-attribution-for-the-web/ https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-att...
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Yeah, I've heard of PARAKEET, and imagine concerns are quite similar to FLoC. Thankfully, Microsoft doesn't have the capability to push web standards, so as long as Google doesn't adopt it, we are good there. =) Apple's solution doesn't look like it provides user interests or demographics, does it?
    - jefftk 6y ago
      PARKEET is much more like Chrome's TURTLEDOVE/FLEDGE than it is like FLoC ;) There's a lot of cooperation here, and similar goals; I'm not sure why you think Microsoft and Google can't find an API they both like?
danShumway 6y ago
If Chrome wants to be the only browser with third-party cookies, they're welcome to, I suppose. Breaking down Chrome's dominance has to start somewhere, and having a straightforward, easily verifiable reputation as the single least private browser on the market is a decent start. I already know what the headlines from most sites will look like if Chrome decides to reverse course. If only Firefox was removing cookies, that would be a problem, because Chrome could just ignore them. But with Safari on board as well, and with the entire iOS market at stake for sites that try to ignore the policy... If Chrome doesn't remove third-party cookies, they will be the only browser anywhere not to do so. Chrome's original stance might have been conditional on finding a replacement, but I'm not sure they still have a choice at this point. I don't think Google is going to hand that selling point to Apple, and you're seeing yourself in these comments that a lot of the people following this issue didn't accept Chrome's original promise as conditional. And maybe Chrome is confident enough in their market position that they're willing to take that hit and they think it won't matter. Maybe they're even right. From my perspective, breaking Chrome's dominance on the web is a necessary thing that needs to happen eventually for the health of the web, so every time that Chrome makes their browser worse in a highly public way, that's a win. Remember that Firefox and Safari are already blocking the majority of third-party cookies online, and those browsers still work today, the web hasn't broken for them. So every year that Chrome spends delaying that deprecation is another year where people like me can point out that they're lagging behind literally the entire market on privacy.
- jefftk 6y ago
  > If only Firefox was removing cookies, that would be a problem, because Chrome could just ignore them. But with Safari on board as well, and with the entire iOS market at stake for sites that try to ignore the policy. nit: Safari was ahead of Firefox here, with ITP 1.0 blocking most third-party cookies by default in 2017.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Indeed, Apple's been at the forefront here. It's why I'm low key okay with the WebKit monopoly requirement on iOS, everyone has to deal with it. And the other minority browsers are also on board now. Edge and Brave and such are also preferring privacy-friendly default configurations.