4 ms·

So when a major regulatory authority forbids Chrome from proceeding with the third party cookie deprecation plan, what should Google do? Apparently the vast maj

by jsnell 5y ago

So when a major regulatory authority forbids Chrome from proceeding with the third party cookie deprecation plan, what should Google do? Apparently the vast majority of HN commenters think that they should ignore the regulators, and just plow ahead. For some reason I imagine that if they actually were to ignore the regulators, the feedback from exactly the same commenters would not be positive.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
I think they should deprecate Chrome or spin it off into another company. The issue here is monopoly. Also, regulators aren't upset about them blocking third party cookies, every other browser already does that. They're upset about Google's attempts to inject new Google-controlled tracking methods that grant them a further advantage at the cost of all their competitors. The answer is simple: Block third party cookies and don't replace them with anything.
- jsnell 5y ago
  > Also, regulators aren't upset about them blocking third party cookies, every other browser already does that As far as I can tell, that is untrue. CMA has explicitly stated concerns with any removal of third party cookies by default from Chrome, since they believe ad tech companies are dependent on them but Google isn't. Any new mechanisms introduced for privacy preserving ad targeting are irrelevant, except insofar that they could be used to satisfy the needs of said ad tech companies. That other browsers have been allowed to remove third party cookies by default is also irrelevant: the fact is still that Chrome is not being allowed to do so. > I think they should deprecate Chrome Oh, come on.
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    > CMA has explicitly stated concerns with any removal of third party cookies by default from Chrome, since they believe ad tech companies are dependent on them but Google isn't This is because Google owns Chrome, and hence, doesn't need the cookies to collect web activity. The solution, as I said, is to force them to spin off Chrome. > Oh, come on. It's actively harmful to consumers. Chrome is like asbestos, we're better off just... not using it. There are safer alternatives out there.
tomjen3 5y ago
At least make it abundantly clear why, and then sue the regulators.

by jsnell 5y ago

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

I think they should deprecate Chrome or spin it off into another company. The issue here is monopoly. Also, regulators aren't upset about them blocking third party cookies, every other browser already does that. They're upset about Google's attempts to inject new Google-controlled tracking methods that grant them a further advantage at the cost of all their competitors. The answer is simple: Block third party cookies and don't replace them with anything.

jsnell 5y ago
> Also, regulators aren't upset about them blocking third party cookies, every other browser already does that As far as I can tell, that is untrue. CMA has explicitly stated concerns with any removal of third party cookies by default from Chrome, since they believe ad tech companies are dependent on them but Google isn't. Any new mechanisms introduced for privacy preserving ad targeting are irrelevant, except insofar that they could be used to satisfy the needs of said ad tech companies. That other browsers have been allowed to remove third party cookies by default is also irrelevant: the fact is still that Chrome is not being allowed to do so. > I think they should deprecate Chrome Oh, come on.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  > CMA has explicitly stated concerns with any removal of third party cookies by default from Chrome, since they believe ad tech companies are dependent on them but Google isn't This is because Google owns Chrome, and hence, doesn't need the cookies to collect web activity. The solution, as I said, is to force them to spin off Chrome. > Oh, come on. It's actively harmful to consumers. Chrome is like asbestos, we're better off just... not using it. There are safer alternatives out there.

tomjen3 5y ago

At least make it abundantly clear why, and then sue the regulators.