16 ms·

Google delays phasing out ad cookies on Chrome until 2024

174 points by cpeterso 4y ago

frumper 4y ago
I know it's been the case for a while, but as time goes on I actually feel more like the product when I need to use Chrome. They aren't building it for me, they're building it to sell me.
- charles_kaw 4y ago
  Firefox has done a wonderful job of building first class privacy features into their browser. It's fast, and responsive. They have some leadership issues, but the technical side of things seems to be doing well. I switched to it as my main browser a few years back and it's been fine and hiccup-free.
  - ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
    Been my daily driver for quite some time. Great dev tools for working with CSS Grids too for those front end folks out there. Download, install, disable everything related to pocket, install my password manager, and then I've got my ideal browser.
  - user3939382 4y ago
    I’ve had Mozilla developers tell me they have no interest in getting rid of all the phoning home Firefox does, not even as an advanced or hidden config. I wish they cared as much about privacy at the technical level as they do in their marketing.
    - deepstack 4y ago
      interesting, do want more information on this. Can someone who work for Mozilla care to comment on this? If this is true, then I would rather be using brave or ungoogled chrome build than Firefox.
      - jefftk 4y ago
        The big advantage of using Firefox that you don't get with Brave or UnGoogled Chromium is that you are supporting browser engine diversity.
        kreeben 4y ago
        To what end and through what means, though? Do you really think Mozilla would never do anything nefarious with the data that they collect? They would never, ever, swear on their mother's grave, sell that data to a third party, is that what you believe?
        saagarjha 4y ago
        You're replying to a comment about browser engine diversity, which is largely decoupled from privacy.
      - bkberry352 4y ago
        No, it's not true, anyone can opt out of telemetry at any time via about:preferences, you don't even need to go to about:config https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid
    - muizelaar 4y ago
      What phoning home can't you disable in about:config?
      - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
        I suspect the core issue isn't that you can't disable new privacy violations in Firefox, but that they're regularly added and default to being enabled, such that keeping them disabled is a regular full-time job. It'd be ideal if there was a single "don't phone home" switch that Firefox obeyed for all new telemetry features, but they don't. That being said, being upset Mozilla has a trash telemetry policy isn't a good excuse to use Chrome, a willfully compromised browser which has refused to implement industry-standard protections.
      - danuker 4y ago
        https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/mozilla.html https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/mozilla.html
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
        You can also disable phoning home in Chromium.
      - freediver 4y ago
        It is problematic that phoning home is opt-out to begin with. A browser can not call itself privacy respecting if it is not zero telemetry by default.
    - harikb 4y ago
      Do you have any reason to believe it is anything beyond a developer wanting to record usage and runtime issues?
      - dataflow 4y ago
        I don't think moving the goalposts for Mozilla makes for a compelling argument.
      - jakear 4y ago
        No matter what it’s for, there should be a way for concerned users to disable it. I say this as someone who is pro telemetry in general.
        bkberry352 4y ago
        There is a way and it's officially documented: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid just go into about:preferences
        user3939382 4y ago
        Again here’s their traffic upon start and exit after doing that https://i.imgur.com/VFb1maZ.png https://i.imgur.com/VFb1maZ.png This is no extensions and all telemetry disabled.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        I have a reason to believe that it is a company wanting something beyond what many or most of the users would prefer.
        jonathankoren 4y ago
        > I have a reason to believe that it is a company wanting something beyond what many or most of the users would prefer. As an exmozillian I find this I have to wonder about your reasons for this. From why you think crash reporting, render time, and privacy preserving analytics aren't giving benefits that users prefer, all the way to characterizing MoCo as "a company".
    - Pakdef 4y ago
      I disabled the web portal ping in the settings (about:config - network.captive-portal-service.enabled - set to false)... I don't think it phones home anymore... But I sure don't like the direction Firefox is going. I've been using it since the beginning and I'm finally thinking of switching. The funny thing is that I started using Firefox because of extensions.... and they basically blocked extensions on Firefox mobile... I know that you can make collections, but they made it as painful as possible.
    - phyzome 4y ago
      Ah, you'd better use Chrome, then. They hardly even claim to care about privacy!
      - user3939382 4y ago
        I use Firefox, but I'm disappointed.
      - yucky 4y ago
        If only there were more than 2 options for browsers...
        prox 4y ago
        You have Firefox and everything Chromium based, which is still Chrome as I understand it.
        yucky 4y ago
        Aside from the other alternative listed below, even within the Chromium universe you have options like Brave and LibreWolf which are very privacy oriented - https://privacytests.org/ https://privacytests.org/
        MaxBarraclough 4y ago
        Not quite true, there are also the WebKit-based browsers: Safari, and some obscure ones such as GNOME Web.
        bigDinosaur 4y ago
        Safari requires MacOS and thus isn't a replacement unless you exclusively use Macs. Also, for all its supposed support of privacy features it doesn't allow you to use good ad blocking plugins like uBlock Origin. I only use the thing because it's the best for battery life, otherwise I think it's significantly inferior to both Chromium and Firefox.
    - sensanaty 4y ago
      It is unfortunate that it's enabled by default, but I just have NextDNS block any calls to and from `*.telemetry.mozilla.org`. 0 complaints from me after doing that
    - bkberry352 4y ago
      Uhh, you absolutely can disable telemetry, it's in the Privacy and Security section of about:preferences, see here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid . Disabling telemetry is also interpreted as a deletion request, so anything collected so far will be deleted.
      - user3939382 4y ago
        Here's all telemetry and extensions disabled upon start and exit https://i.imgur.com/VFb1maZ.png https://i.imgur.com/VFb1maZ.png
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
    As a Firefox user for the past 8 years or so, the only thing that I switch to chrome for these days is searching in foreign languages. Translation is second class in Firefox compared to Chrome.
    - neltnerb 4y ago
      You don't have to periodically pop into chrome or chromium in order to get a website to work right? Just a few weeks back I couldn't place an order on a major airline with Firefox on Linux, Chromium on Linux, or Firefox on Windows. I had to do it with Edge on Windows. I feel like it's not that common, but it is definitely increasingly common as web designers build sites to the Chrome spec in order to get that "blink" tag to work. It's so weird to me that large companies charging thousands of dollars are okay with the situation, seems like a "needs a shakeup" situation.
      - coldpie 4y ago
        > You don't have to periodically pop into chrome or chromium in order to get a website to work right? It's just anecdotal, but except for some very specialized web apps (think like 3D graphics demos), no, I've never had that happen.
      - SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
        Yes, it happens for me. Rarely, perhaps once every three months or so. For example, recently I bought train tickets to Macchu Picchu in Peru and I was only able to do so in Safari. It’s mostly aged government websites that don’t support Firefox
    - teddyh 4y ago
      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/firefox-translations/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/firefox-trans...
  - antioppressor 4y ago
    General populace has no idea what privacy is. Firefox is a burning house. Zero innovation is the word that best describes them. They did nothing to compete with Chrome. They just exist, try to survive, because for the past 10 years they did nothing to innovate. Total management change needed.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Really? I use Chromium and feel nothing of the sort. I don't get any notifications asking me to "Try the new Chrome!" when I upgrade my OS, and I don't get my links hijacked when I try opening arbitrary files. It doesn't have a weird crypto scheme funding it, there's no weird virtue-signally marketing team ruining things with every update... Chrome is one of the few browsers that isn't pushing that stuff on you, at least when you remove the Google bits.
  - stevage 4y ago
    OP said Chrome. You said Chromium.
- alexb_ 4y ago
  Probably an unpopular opinion here but Edge is surprisingly good. Feels like they are the only browser actually innovating.
  - xnx 4y ago
    What areas do you find Edge different/better than Chrome?
    - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
      Basically Edge is Chrome with all the privacy features other browsers have but Google refuses to implement.
      - BudaDude 4y ago
        > privacy features other browsers have but Google refuses to implement I am willing to bet MS is collecting all that data instead.
      - radicaldreamer 4y ago
        Is it possible to change the search bar in the new tab page from Bing to another search engine yet? It seemed like it was set to bing, couldn't be disabled, and only the address bar could be changed to another search engine.
        int_19h 4y ago
        Not quite, but there is a setting called "Search on new tabs uses search box or address bar". When set to "address bar", typing anything in that giant search textbox on the new tab page automatically switches focus to the address bar (which uses the default search engine you've configured), so you can just do Ctrl+T and type.
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
        Sure, the rewards, shopping assistant, multiple preloading pages and sending results to Microsoft is so much more privacy friendly.. if you ignore reality
- devmunchies 4y ago
  even worse, you aren't the product, the rich data and access to users (via targeted ads) is the product. You are merely a mine-able resource. Another analogy would be we are cattle, but the product is the milk/meat, not the cow.
- hardwaresofton 4y ago
  Imagine if you could sell an attractively priced laptop form factor that people could buy! Then you could get the data all the time, not just when users browse the internet. Or you could make browsing the internet almost synonymous with using the computer. Whichever works for you semantically.
- matt-p 4y ago
  This! Weirdly I think this anti-cookie movement is actually really bad for smaller Web properties. They will no longer be able to track you much if at all. The likes of Google, Facebook, Tiktok or Snapchat will still be able to just fine though..
  - thr0wawayf00 4y ago
    I think the internet is moving in this general direction more broadly because those huge companies you mentioned have an outsized influence in determining the future of the web.
  - jeromegv 4y ago
    We never agreed to be tracked in every part of our online life. The fact they are the little guys isn’t a compelling argument. Facebook is being hurt as much if more anyway
- themitigating 4y ago
  Why would you think that anything is freely distributed by a company for your benefit? This is almost never the case and has been on longer than the internet.
- freediver 4y ago
  Building and maintaining a browser has a cost, and if it is not you, the user, paying for it, it has to mean that a third party is paying it for you.
unixbane 4y ago
- dang 4y ago
  "Please don't fulminate." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - unixbane 4y ago
    Well I can make an article and submit it if you want saying the same thing. This is an issue that badly needs to be addressed. The software industry is crap and HN are not angels or not complicit.
    - dang 4y ago
      "HN" is millions of people. All kinds of views are represented here and I'm sure many people agree with you.
MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
No clear replacement for FLoC?
- jefftk 4y ago
  That's: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/privacy-sandbox/topics/ https://developer.chrome.com/docs/privacy-sandbox/topics/
  - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
    So I guess the follow up question is: For browsers already blocking 3rd party cookies, what's the incentive to adopt topics?
    - jefftk 4y ago
      Safari is generally in favor of facilitating sites making money from ads, as long as the privacy impact is minimal. For example, they proposed and implemented https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-attribution-for-the-web/ https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-att.... So I could see them implementing Topics if they were convinced that its specific tradeoff of better monetization for publishers vs leaking some bits about the user was worth it.
- Postosuchus 4y ago
  Topics: https://blog.google/products/chrome/get-know-new-topics-api-privacy-sandbox/ https://blog.google/products/chrome/get-know-new-topics-api-...
dudus 4y ago
Official Announcement: https://blog.google/products/chrome/update-testing-privacy-sandbox-web/ https://blog.google/products/chrome/update-testing-privacy-s...
ocdtrekkie 4y ago
We are well past the point where nobody has any reasonable excuse to use Chrome, and the choice to do so is to actively compromise their own safety and security. Every other browser has already done this. Every. Single. One. But Google won't until they have added a new way to violate user privacy instead. Privacy is a fundamental part of security, you are not reasonably secure if using Chrome. Full stop. If you absolutely need the Chromium engine, there's Edge or Brave. Both are pretty much 100% compatible, but don't think security is a joke. If you work on "security" at Google, and you actually mean it, walk out until third party cookies are disabled by default. Tell managers you won't gaslight people into believing they're safe when Google has placed ad revenue so squarely above security and plans to not solve it for at least another two years.
- RandomThrow321 4y ago
  > nobody has any reasonable excuse to use Chrome Maybe they work at Google
- briandear 4y ago
  Just a point of fact, security and privacy are not the same thing.
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    They absolutely are, you cannot have one without the other. The fact that these concepts are inescapably linked together is something many in tech have failed to recognize. Behavior that compromises your privacy will compromise your security (ex. ads are the primary source of malware), and behavior that compromises your security will compromise your privacy (ex. malware generally likes to exfiltrate your private data, and sometimes also track you and display ads). If a company chooses to violate your privacy, they are willfully compromising your security by default.
    - wepple 4y ago
      > ex. ads are the primary source of malware This doesn’t make logical sense. Ads are a source of malware because it’s a convenient way to distribute content to many people. Email is also a significant source of malware for the same reason. A better example might be that excessive and unnecessary data collection by a system that gives you limited visibility over use and limited control, exposes you to a higher possibility of security incident. But that isn’t intrinsically true if the data is properly secured. I tend to agree with the inverse; bad security is probably not good for your privacy.
xiaodai 4y ago
What will replace cookies?
- deepstack 4y ago
  web pages do NOT need cookies or javascript period. and if you insist on that your users must use javascript to view your web site, then cookie is not even needed, one can do some finger printing and there is your permanent cookie! This development of web has many tech savvy people stop using internet on their phone and switched back to old dump phones (and this comes from someone who has being promoting JS since before nodejs came along). Please bring back web pages that does not require cookie or javascript to function, a web page that can work in the terminal browser like lynx or links2 is the base standard for web page. JS and cookies are just icing on the cake not needed.
  - rschachte 4y ago
    I always wonder what specifically marked the turning point for web usability. Too many dark UX patterns, popups, ads and extremely heavy frameworks for extremely simple sites. I feel that we got to a point where the community put out a couple recipes for deploying websites and everyone just jumped on it irrespective of the problem, mimicked the same patterns (email newsletter popups, ads, google analytics, 30 million external assets, etc) and called it a day. While I think your opinion is a bit extreme, I agree that there are so many things that we don’t need, but companies are hiring and new devs are copying the recipes.
    - chimeracoder 4y ago
      > I always wonder what specifically marked the turning point for web usability. Too many dark UX patterns, popups, ads and extremely heavy frameworks for extremely simple sites. It's funny that you include popups in that, because actual popups are almost nonexistent today, whereas they were ubiquitous in the early 2000s web.
    - nl 4y ago
      The web is SO much more usable now than at anytime earlier. For example, browsers used to actually allow pop-up windows (as in it would open a new desktop window (not a tab), sometimes off-screen). And then when you closed it the browser would let it spawn more pages. There was a common pattern of spamming popup windows with a "close" button the same place a "run" button was when you downloaded an executable in Windows 95. And then after closing 10 windows with the button in the same place they'd hit you with an executable download. This was common.
_8j50 4y ago
They must be out of budget for paying fines for the fiscal year and expect to pay fines in '23 for other things?
grishka 4y ago
> The Alphabet Inc. unit has been working with publishers, marketers and regulators on its plan to replace cookies, the software marketers use to track people’s online activity and tailor ads accordingly, through an initiative known as the Privacy Sandbox. How about not fumbling around, not "working with" anyone, but just flipping the damn third-party cookies setting to "disabled" by default without providing any replacement at all? It takes less than a minute to make that change in the code.
- IMTDb 4y ago
  It also takes you less than a minute to change the "disable all cookies" settings to true in your browser. Then tell us how you feel about not being able to connect on any websites, and how long until you revert the setting. Cookies allow marketers to identify you - which is bad. They also allow all your tools to identify you - which is good. It's not like cookies are this inherently evil thing that has no legitimate use. They serve a real purpose but are also being abused. And as it turns out, it's not that simple to keep their usefulness while addressing their abuse. Because ultimately, both marketers and tools use the cookies in the exact same way, it's what they do after that is the issue. Edit: hadn't seen you were talking about third-party cookies specifically. I fully agree with that. I have personally disabled them since safari disables them by default, and I have little to no impact on my day to day.
  - ehsankia 4y ago
    Also, like it or not, the majority of the internet runs on ads currently. Remember the outrage from Youtube creators when adpocalypse happened and everyone's income just dropped? Now imagine you're a website owner and suddenly your website isn't making any more money and needs to shutdown.
    - grishka 4y ago
      I am a website owner. It costs me a whopping 45€/month to run. I'm paying that from my own money and I plan to keep it that way forever. Not everything that could possibly be used to earn money should be used to earn money. I enjoy respecting my users.
shadykiller 4y ago
Cat delays eating mice until later
devmunchies 4y ago
Does 3rd party cookies include 1st party cookies that were created by a server that CNAMEs to a 3rd party service?
- garciasn 4y ago
  As far as I understand, no; but, ITP has already taken care of this so it’s effectively a 7-day cap anyway. Most vendors are moving to server-side technologies and workarounds (especially FB) so a lot of this will be nullified, if it ever even happens.
  - jefftk 4y ago
    ITP only has an effect on Safari, and we're talking about how Chrome handles cookies.
    - garciasn 4y ago
      ITP has been mirrored in FF and Brave and potentially others. Their marketshare may be smaller than iOS Safari, but the tech is still there, regardless.
      - jefftk 4y ago
        None of the other browsers have implemented anything like ITP's 7-day window, though.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bogomipz 4y ago
    Could you or someone else say how some of the server-side technology replacements work or what they entail?
dcow 4y ago
Might as well read "Google delays making less money". Not surprising at all.
- darepublic 4y ago
  Seems simplistic to draw that conclusion. Especially if you assume they are as hyper focused on profit above all else. If you think that way then there must be some selfish motive to them phasing out ad cookies and so the delay may be about profit but could also indicate something else.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    Google would probably face legal issues if they did this too fast, other ad networks depends a lot more on these tracking cookies than Google does so they would sue Google for using their browser dominance to hurt their advertising competitors.
  - IncRnd 4y ago
    > Seems simplistic to draw that conclusion. Simplistic? Maybe, but it is also realistic. > Especially if you assume they are as hyper focused on profit above all else. Google is not "they", as in a group of people. Google has been a public company for 18 years, since 2004. The main purpose of a public company has always been to maximize shareholder value by generating as much profit as possible. Google is no different in that regard.
  - etataetaet 4y ago
    Aren't companies forced to try and make themselves as valuable as possible? My gut says they wanted to get a publicity boost so they decided to cut cookies but then had to backtrack as they realized they'd loose a lot more money than expected. I think the delay is to buy more time to think of some way of minimizing damage (profits).
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      Fiduciary duty to shareholders often is misinterpreted that way, but no, companies are not forced to maximize shareholder value above all else.
chrisfinazzo 4y ago
So, in other words...never. Got it.
- Pakdef 4y ago
  starting to sound like copyright and Disney
  - jefftk 4y ago
    Luckily it wasn't up to Disney, and copyright is progressing again. The first Winnie the Pooh book, for example, is now out of copyright.
wellthisisgreat 4y ago
At this point I cannot read with any sympathy words like “give marketers more time”. Same goes for real estate professionals. I imagine this as a sign of things to come, and that in some 10 years people will detest those professions.
- RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
  Can you expand on the allusion to real estate?
  - wellthisisgreat 4y ago
    Marketers/ Admen as facilitators of Internet culture collapse. Real estate investors/professionals as facilitators of housing crisis.
- sensanaty 4y ago
  Does anyone like marketers in the present? Most people I talk to - technical or otherwise - seem to detest them
GuB-42 4y ago
It is called "third party cookies" not "ad cookies". You can have ads without third party cookies and third party cookies have other purposes than ads. I know that ads currently are the main use for third party cookies, but I think that everyone who has any interest in these news know what a third party cookie is, so why not use the proper term? I actually thought it was some ad specific Chrome feature, like the Advertising ID in Android, but no, it turns out these are just third party cookies.
- jefftk 4y ago
  The official blog post just talks about third party cookies: https://blog.google/products/chrome/update-testing-privacy-sandbox-web/ https://blog.google/products/chrome/update-testing-privacy-s... I think the main reason Bloomberg is calling them ad cookies is because it is the impact on advertising that's causing this delay. Google promised regulators that they wouldn't get rid of cookies without a replacement for advertising, and those replacements aren't ready yet. On the other hand, this is really hard and I don't know if Google is actually going to be able to do this ever. (I used to work on this)
  - ilovegorhill 4y ago
    This is the actual link that should have been posted to HackerNews: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/expanding-privacy-sandbox-testing/ https://developer.chrome.com/blog/expanding-privacy-sandbox-...
    - jefftk 4y ago
      I'd missed that post, and it's an excellent summary of where this work is!
  - JoshTriplett 4y ago
    > Google promised regulators that they wouldn't get rid of cookies without a replacement for advertising This is an excellent example of theoretically good intentions (promoting competition) leading to terrible results (preventing the removal of something largely unwanted that's abused by advertisers).
nl 4y ago
To make things clear: Getting rid of 3rd party cookies will benefit Google. Google is building alternative mechanisms that they can use to do similar advertising (the Privacy Sandbox[1]). This may or may not be better than 3rd party cookies (it's nuanced). It's undoubtedly better for Google - they are the ones who are doing most of the work on this, and so their tech will work the best when the transition occurs. Many (most?) AdTech networks will fall even further behind Google's network, giving Google a competitive advantage. We saw the same thing with GDPR - Facebook and Google were the most involved in the design process and had the biggest budget and were the best prepared when it rolled out. They already had transitioned to GDPR-compliant storage etc, so didn't lose any targeting ability, whereas other companies did, and newcomers had bigger barriers to entry. [1] https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/open-web/#proposals-for-the-web https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/open-web/#proposals-fo...
ece 4y ago
https://archive.ph/zgWKa https://archive.ph/zgWKa

174 points by cpeterso 4y ago

I know it's been the case for a while, but as time goes on I actually feel more like the product when I need to use Chrome. They aren't building it for me, they're building it to sell me.

charles_kaw 4y ago
Firefox has done a wonderful job of building first class privacy features into their browser. It's fast, and responsive. They have some leadership issues, but the technical side of things seems to be doing well. I switched to it as my main browser a few years back and it's been fine and hiccup-free.
- ElemenoPicuares 4y ago
  Been my daily driver for quite some time. Great dev tools for working with CSS Grids too for those front end folks out there. Download, install, disable everything related to pocket, install my password manager, and then I've got my ideal browser.
- user3939382 4y ago
  I’ve had Mozilla developers tell me they have no interest in getting rid of all the phoning home Firefox does, not even as an advanced or hidden config. I wish they cared as much about privacy at the technical level as they do in their marketing.
  - deepstack 4y ago
    interesting, do want more information on this. Can someone who work for Mozilla care to comment on this? If this is true, then I would rather be using brave or ungoogled chrome build than Firefox.
    - jefftk 4y ago
      The big advantage of using Firefox that you don't get with Brave or UnGoogled Chromium is that you are supporting browser engine diversity.
      - kreeben 4y ago
        To what end and through what means, though? Do you really think Mozilla would never do anything nefarious with the data that they collect? They would never, ever, swear on their mother's grave, sell that data to a third party, is that what you believe?
        saagarjha 4y ago
        You're replying to a comment about browser engine diversity, which is largely decoupled from privacy.
    - bkberry352 4y ago
      No, it's not true, anyone can opt out of telemetry at any time via about:preferences, you don't even need to go to about:config https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid
  - muizelaar 4y ago
    What phoning home can't you disable in about:config?
    - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
      I suspect the core issue isn't that you can't disable new privacy violations in Firefox, but that they're regularly added and default to being enabled, such that keeping them disabled is a regular full-time job. It'd be ideal if there was a single "don't phone home" switch that Firefox obeyed for all new telemetry features, but they don't. That being said, being upset Mozilla has a trash telemetry policy isn't a good excuse to use Chrome, a willfully compromised browser which has refused to implement industry-standard protections.
    - danuker 4y ago
      https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/mozilla.html https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/mozilla.html
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      You can also disable phoning home in Chromium.
    - freediver 4y ago
      It is problematic that phoning home is opt-out to begin with. A browser can not call itself privacy respecting if it is not zero telemetry by default.
  - harikb 4y ago
    Do you have any reason to believe it is anything beyond a developer wanting to record usage and runtime issues?
    - dataflow 4y ago
      I don't think moving the goalposts for Mozilla makes for a compelling argument.
    - jakear 4y ago
      No matter what it’s for, there should be a way for concerned users to disable it. I say this as someone who is pro telemetry in general.
      - bkberry352 4y ago
        There is a way and it's officially documented: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid just go into about:preferences
        user3939382 4y ago
        Again here’s their traffic upon start and exit after doing that https://i.imgur.com/VFb1maZ.png https://i.imgur.com/VFb1maZ.png This is no extensions and all telemetry disabled.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      I have a reason to believe that it is a company wanting something beyond what many or most of the users would prefer.
      - jonathankoren 4y ago
        > I have a reason to believe that it is a company wanting something beyond what many or most of the users would prefer. As an exmozillian I find this I have to wonder about your reasons for this. From why you think crash reporting, render time, and privacy preserving analytics aren't giving benefits that users prefer, all the way to characterizing MoCo as "a company".
  - Pakdef 4y ago
    I disabled the web portal ping in the settings (about:config - network.captive-portal-service.enabled - set to false)... I don't think it phones home anymore... But I sure don't like the direction Firefox is going. I've been using it since the beginning and I'm finally thinking of switching. The funny thing is that I started using Firefox because of extensions.... and they basically blocked extensions on Firefox mobile... I know that you can make collections, but they made it as painful as possible.
  - phyzome 4y ago
    Ah, you'd better use Chrome, then. They hardly even claim to care about privacy!
    - user3939382 4y ago
      I use Firefox, but I'm disappointed.
    - yucky 4y ago
      If only there were more than 2 options for browsers...
      - prox 4y ago
        You have Firefox and everything Chromium based, which is still Chrome as I understand it.
        yucky 4y ago
        Aside from the other alternative listed below, even within the Chromium universe you have options like Brave and LibreWolf which are very privacy oriented - https://privacytests.org/ https://privacytests.org/
        MaxBarraclough 4y ago
        Not quite true, there are also the WebKit-based browsers: Safari, and some obscure ones such as GNOME Web.
        bigDinosaur 4y ago
        Safari requires MacOS and thus isn't a replacement unless you exclusively use Macs. Also, for all its supposed support of privacy features it doesn't allow you to use good ad blocking plugins like uBlock Origin. I only use the thing because it's the best for battery life, otherwise I think it's significantly inferior to both Chromium and Firefox.
  - sensanaty 4y ago
    It is unfortunate that it's enabled by default, but I just have NextDNS block any calls to and from `*.telemetry.mozilla.org`. 0 complaints from me after doing that
  - bkberry352 4y ago
    Uhh, you absolutely can disable telemetry, it's in the Privacy and Security section of about:preferences, see here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/telemetry-clientid . Disabling telemetry is also interpreted as a deletion request, so anything collected so far will be deleted.
    - user3939382 4y ago
      Here's all telemetry and extensions disabled upon start and exit https://i.imgur.com/VFb1maZ.png https://i.imgur.com/VFb1maZ.png
- SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
  As a Firefox user for the past 8 years or so, the only thing that I switch to chrome for these days is searching in foreign languages. Translation is second class in Firefox compared to Chrome.
  - neltnerb 4y ago
    You don't have to periodically pop into chrome or chromium in order to get a website to work right? Just a few weeks back I couldn't place an order on a major airline with Firefox on Linux, Chromium on Linux, or Firefox on Windows. I had to do it with Edge on Windows. I feel like it's not that common, but it is definitely increasingly common as web designers build sites to the Chrome spec in order to get that "blink" tag to work. It's so weird to me that large companies charging thousands of dollars are okay with the situation, seems like a "needs a shakeup" situation.
    - coldpie 4y ago
      > You don't have to periodically pop into chrome or chromium in order to get a website to work right? It's just anecdotal, but except for some very specialized web apps (think like 3D graphics demos), no, I've never had that happen.
    - SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
      Yes, it happens for me. Rarely, perhaps once every three months or so. For example, recently I bought train tickets to Macchu Picchu in Peru and I was only able to do so in Safari. It’s mostly aged government websites that don’t support Firefox
  - teddyh 4y ago
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/firefox-translations/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/firefox-trans...
- antioppressor 4y ago
  General populace has no idea what privacy is. Firefox is a burning house. Zero innovation is the word that best describes them. They did nothing to compete with Chrome. They just exist, try to survive, because for the past 10 years they did nothing to innovate. Total management change needed.
smoldesu 4y ago
Really? I use Chromium and feel nothing of the sort. I don't get any notifications asking me to "Try the new Chrome!" when I upgrade my OS, and I don't get my links hijacked when I try opening arbitrary files. It doesn't have a weird crypto scheme funding it, there's no weird virtue-signally marketing team ruining things with every update... Chrome is one of the few browsers that isn't pushing that stuff on you, at least when you remove the Google bits.
- stevage 4y ago
  OP said Chrome. You said Chromium.
alexb_ 4y ago
Probably an unpopular opinion here but Edge is surprisingly good. Feels like they are the only browser actually innovating.
- xnx 4y ago
  What areas do you find Edge different/better than Chrome?
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    Basically Edge is Chrome with all the privacy features other browsers have but Google refuses to implement.
    - BudaDude 4y ago
      > privacy features other browsers have but Google refuses to implement I am willing to bet MS is collecting all that data instead.
    - radicaldreamer 4y ago
      Is it possible to change the search bar in the new tab page from Bing to another search engine yet? It seemed like it was set to bing, couldn't be disabled, and only the address bar could be changed to another search engine.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        Not quite, but there is a setting called "Search on new tabs uses search box or address bar". When set to "address bar", typing anything in that giant search textbox on the new tab page automatically switches focus to the address bar (which uses the default search engine you've configured), so you can just do Ctrl+T and type.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      Sure, the rewards, shopping assistant, multiple preloading pages and sending results to Microsoft is so much more privacy friendly.. if you ignore reality
devmunchies 4y ago
even worse, you aren't the product, the rich data and access to users (via targeted ads) is the product. You are merely a mine-able resource. Another analogy would be we are cattle, but the product is the milk/meat, not the cow.
hardwaresofton 4y ago
Imagine if you could sell an attractively priced laptop form factor that people could buy! Then you could get the data all the time, not just when users browse the internet. Or you could make browsing the internet almost synonymous with using the computer. Whichever works for you semantically.
matt-p 4y ago
This! Weirdly I think this anti-cookie movement is actually really bad for smaller Web properties. They will no longer be able to track you much if at all. The likes of Google, Facebook, Tiktok or Snapchat will still be able to just fine though..
- thr0wawayf00 4y ago
  I think the internet is moving in this general direction more broadly because those huge companies you mentioned have an outsized influence in determining the future of the web.
- jeromegv 4y ago
  We never agreed to be tracked in every part of our online life. The fact they are the little guys isn’t a compelling argument. Facebook is being hurt as much if more anyway
themitigating 4y ago
Why would you think that anything is freely distributed by a company for your benefit? This is almost never the case and has been on longer than the internet.
freediver 4y ago
Building and maintaining a browser has a cost, and if it is not you, the user, paying for it, it has to mean that a third party is paying it for you.

unixbane 4y ago

dang 4y ago
"Please don't fulminate." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- unixbane 4y ago
  Well I can make an article and submit it if you want saying the same thing. This is an issue that badly needs to be addressed. The software industry is crap and HN are not angels or not complicit.
  - dang 4y ago
    "HN" is millions of people. All kinds of views are represented here and I'm sure many people agree with you.

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago

No clear replacement for FLoC?

jefftk 4y ago
That's: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/privacy-sandbox/topics/ https://developer.chrome.com/docs/privacy-sandbox/topics/
- MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
  So I guess the follow up question is: For browsers already blocking 3rd party cookies, what's the incentive to adopt topics?
  - jefftk 4y ago
    Safari is generally in favor of facilitating sites making money from ads, as long as the privacy impact is minimal. For example, they proposed and implemented https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-attribution-for-the-web/ https://webkit.org/blog/8943/privacy-preserving-ad-click-att.... So I could see them implementing Topics if they were convinced that its specific tradeoff of better monetization for publishers vs leaking some bits about the user was worth it.
Postosuchus 4y ago
Topics: https://blog.google/products/chrome/get-know-new-topics-api-privacy-sandbox/ https://blog.google/products/chrome/get-know-new-topics-api-...

dudus 4y ago

Official Announcement: https://blog.google/products/chrome/update-testing-privacy-sandbox-web/ https://blog.google/products/chrome/update-testing-privacy-s...

ocdtrekkie 4y ago

We are well past the point where nobody has any reasonable excuse to use Chrome, and the choice to do so is to actively compromise their own safety and security. Every other browser has already done this. Every. Single. One. But Google won't until they have added a new way to violate user privacy instead. Privacy is a fundamental part of security, you are not reasonably secure if using Chrome. Full stop. If you absolutely need the Chromium engine, there's Edge or Brave. Both are pretty much 100% compatible, but don't think security is a joke. If you work on "security" at Google, and you actually mean it, walk out until third party cookies are disabled by default. Tell managers you won't gaslight people into believing they're safe when Google has placed ad revenue so squarely above security and plans to not solve it for at least another two years.

RandomThrow321 4y ago
> nobody has any reasonable excuse to use Chrome Maybe they work at Google
briandear 4y ago
Just a point of fact, security and privacy are not the same thing.
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  They absolutely are, you cannot have one without the other. The fact that these concepts are inescapably linked together is something many in tech have failed to recognize. Behavior that compromises your privacy will compromise your security (ex. ads are the primary source of malware), and behavior that compromises your security will compromise your privacy (ex. malware generally likes to exfiltrate your private data, and sometimes also track you and display ads). If a company chooses to violate your privacy, they are willfully compromising your security by default.
  - wepple 4y ago
    > ex. ads are the primary source of malware This doesn’t make logical sense. Ads are a source of malware because it’s a convenient way to distribute content to many people. Email is also a significant source of malware for the same reason. A better example might be that excessive and unnecessary data collection by a system that gives you limited visibility over use and limited control, exposes you to a higher possibility of security incident. But that isn’t intrinsically true if the data is properly secured. I tend to agree with the inverse; bad security is probably not good for your privacy.

xiaodai 4y ago

What will replace cookies?

deepstack 4y ago
web pages do NOT need cookies or javascript period. and if you insist on that your users must use javascript to view your web site, then cookie is not even needed, one can do some finger printing and there is your permanent cookie! This development of web has many tech savvy people stop using internet on their phone and switched back to old dump phones (and this comes from someone who has being promoting JS since before nodejs came along). Please bring back web pages that does not require cookie or javascript to function, a web page that can work in the terminal browser like lynx or links2 is the base standard for web page. JS and cookies are just icing on the cake not needed.
- rschachte 4y ago
  I always wonder what specifically marked the turning point for web usability. Too many dark UX patterns, popups, ads and extremely heavy frameworks for extremely simple sites. I feel that we got to a point where the community put out a couple recipes for deploying websites and everyone just jumped on it irrespective of the problem, mimicked the same patterns (email newsletter popups, ads, google analytics, 30 million external assets, etc) and called it a day. While I think your opinion is a bit extreme, I agree that there are so many things that we don’t need, but companies are hiring and new devs are copying the recipes.
  - chimeracoder 4y ago
    > I always wonder what specifically marked the turning point for web usability. Too many dark UX patterns, popups, ads and extremely heavy frameworks for extremely simple sites. It's funny that you include popups in that, because actual popups are almost nonexistent today, whereas they were ubiquitous in the early 2000s web.
  - nl 4y ago
    The web is SO much more usable now than at anytime earlier. For example, browsers used to actually allow pop-up windows (as in it would open a new desktop window (not a tab), sometimes off-screen). And then when you closed it the browser would let it spawn more pages. There was a common pattern of spamming popup windows with a "close" button the same place a "run" button was when you downloaded an executable in Windows 95. And then after closing 10 windows with the button in the same place they'd hit you with an executable download. This was common.

_8j50 4y ago

They must be out of budget for paying fines for the fiscal year and expect to pay fines in '23 for other things?

grishka 4y ago

> The Alphabet Inc. unit has been working with publishers, marketers and regulators on its plan to replace cookies, the software marketers use to track people’s online activity and tailor ads accordingly, through an initiative known as the Privacy Sandbox. How about not fumbling around, not "working with" anyone, but just flipping the damn third-party cookies setting to "disabled" by default without providing any replacement at all? It takes less than a minute to make that change in the code.

IMTDb 4y ago
It also takes you less than a minute to change the "disable all cookies" settings to true in your browser. Then tell us how you feel about not being able to connect on any websites, and how long until you revert the setting. Cookies allow marketers to identify you - which is bad. They also allow all your tools to identify you - which is good. It's not like cookies are this inherently evil thing that has no legitimate use. They serve a real purpose but are also being abused. And as it turns out, it's not that simple to keep their usefulness while addressing their abuse. Because ultimately, both marketers and tools use the cookies in the exact same way, it's what they do after that is the issue. Edit: hadn't seen you were talking about third-party cookies specifically. I fully agree with that. I have personally disabled them since safari disables them by default, and I have little to no impact on my day to day.
- ehsankia 4y ago
  Also, like it or not, the majority of the internet runs on ads currently. Remember the outrage from Youtube creators when adpocalypse happened and everyone's income just dropped? Now imagine you're a website owner and suddenly your website isn't making any more money and needs to shutdown.
  - grishka 4y ago
    I am a website owner. It costs me a whopping 45€/month to run. I'm paying that from my own money and I plan to keep it that way forever. Not everything that could possibly be used to earn money should be used to earn money. I enjoy respecting my users.

shadykiller 4y ago

Cat delays eating mice until later

devmunchies 4y ago

Does 3rd party cookies include 1st party cookies that were created by a server that CNAMEs to a 3rd party service?

garciasn 4y ago
As far as I understand, no; but, ITP has already taken care of this so it’s effectively a 7-day cap anyway. Most vendors are moving to server-side technologies and workarounds (especially FB) so a lot of this will be nullified, if it ever even happens.
- jefftk 4y ago
  ITP only has an effect on Safari, and we're talking about how Chrome handles cookies.
  - garciasn 4y ago
    ITP has been mirrored in FF and Brave and potentially others. Their marketshare may be smaller than iOS Safari, but the tech is still there, regardless.
    - jefftk 4y ago
      None of the other browsers have implemented anything like ITP's 7-day window, though.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bogomipz 4y ago
  Could you or someone else say how some of the server-side technology replacements work or what they entail?

dcow 4y ago

Might as well read "Google delays making less money". Not surprising at all.

darepublic 4y ago
Seems simplistic to draw that conclusion. Especially if you assume they are as hyper focused on profit above all else. If you think that way then there must be some selfish motive to them phasing out ad cookies and so the delay may be about profit but could also indicate something else.
- Jensson 4y ago
  Google would probably face legal issues if they did this too fast, other ad networks depends a lot more on these tracking cookies than Google does so they would sue Google for using their browser dominance to hurt their advertising competitors.
- IncRnd 4y ago
  > Seems simplistic to draw that conclusion. Simplistic? Maybe, but it is also realistic. > Especially if you assume they are as hyper focused on profit above all else. Google is not "they", as in a group of people. Google has been a public company for 18 years, since 2004. The main purpose of a public company has always been to maximize shareholder value by generating as much profit as possible. Google is no different in that regard.
- etataetaet 4y ago
  Aren't companies forced to try and make themselves as valuable as possible? My gut says they wanted to get a publicity boost so they decided to cut cookies but then had to backtrack as they realized they'd loose a lot more money than expected. I think the delay is to buy more time to think of some way of minimizing damage (profits).
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Fiduciary duty to shareholders often is misinterpreted that way, but no, companies are not forced to maximize shareholder value above all else.

chrisfinazzo 4y ago

So, in other words...never. Got it.

Pakdef 4y ago
starting to sound like copyright and Disney
- jefftk 4y ago
  Luckily it wasn't up to Disney, and copyright is progressing again. The first Winnie the Pooh book, for example, is now out of copyright.

wellthisisgreat 4y ago

At this point I cannot read with any sympathy words like “give marketers more time”. Same goes for real estate professionals. I imagine this as a sign of things to come, and that in some 10 years people will detest those professions.

RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
Can you expand on the allusion to real estate?
- wellthisisgreat 4y ago
  Marketers/ Admen as facilitators of Internet culture collapse. Real estate investors/professionals as facilitators of housing crisis.
sensanaty 4y ago
Does anyone like marketers in the present? Most people I talk to - technical or otherwise - seem to detest them

GuB-42 4y ago

It is called "third party cookies" not "ad cookies". You can have ads without third party cookies and third party cookies have other purposes than ads. I know that ads currently are the main use for third party cookies, but I think that everyone who has any interest in these news know what a third party cookie is, so why not use the proper term? I actually thought it was some ad specific Chrome feature, like the Advertising ID in Android, but no, it turns out these are just third party cookies.

jefftk 4y ago
The official blog post just talks about third party cookies: https://blog.google/products/chrome/update-testing-privacy-sandbox-web/ https://blog.google/products/chrome/update-testing-privacy-s... I think the main reason Bloomberg is calling them ad cookies is because it is the impact on advertising that's causing this delay. Google promised regulators that they wouldn't get rid of cookies without a replacement for advertising, and those replacements aren't ready yet. On the other hand, this is really hard and I don't know if Google is actually going to be able to do this ever. (I used to work on this)
- ilovegorhill 4y ago
  This is the actual link that should have been posted to HackerNews: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/expanding-privacy-sandbox-testing/ https://developer.chrome.com/blog/expanding-privacy-sandbox-...
  - jefftk 4y ago
    I'd missed that post, and it's an excellent summary of where this work is!
- JoshTriplett 4y ago
  > Google promised regulators that they wouldn't get rid of cookies without a replacement for advertising This is an excellent example of theoretically good intentions (promoting competition) leading to terrible results (preventing the removal of something largely unwanted that's abused by advertisers).

nl 4y ago

To make things clear: Getting rid of 3rd party cookies will benefit Google. Google is building alternative mechanisms that they can use to do similar advertising (the Privacy Sandbox[1]). This may or may not be better than 3rd party cookies (it's nuanced). It's undoubtedly better for Google - they are the ones who are doing most of the work on this, and so their tech will work the best when the transition occurs. Many (most?) AdTech networks will fall even further behind Google's network, giving Google a competitive advantage. We saw the same thing with GDPR - Facebook and Google were the most involved in the design process and had the biggest budget and were the best prepared when it rolled out. They already had transitioned to GDPR-compliant storage etc, so didn't lose any targeting ability, whereas other companies did, and newcomers had bigger barriers to entry. [1] https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/open-web/#proposals-for-the-web https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/open-web/#proposals-fo...

ece 4y ago

https://archive.ph/zgWKa https://archive.ph/zgWKa