4 ms·
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
by 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 agoFiduciary duty to shareholders often is misinterpreted that way, but no, companies are not forced to maximize shareholder value above all else.
- jefftk 4y ago> I think the delay is to buy more time to think of some way of minimizing damage That's not a cynical take, that's what they're saying publicly. "That's why we started the Privacy Sandbox initiative to collaborate with the ecosystem on developing privacy-preserving alternatives to third-party cookies and other forms of cross-site tracking. ... The most consistent feedback we’ve received is the need for more time to evaluate and test the new Privacy Sandbox technologies before deprecating third-party cookies in Chrome. This feedback aligns with our commitment to the CMA to ensure that the Privacy Sandbox provides effective, privacy-preserving technologies and the industry has sufficient time to adopt these new solutions. This deliberate approach to transitioning from third-party cookies ensures that the web can continue to thrive, without relying on cross-site tracking identifiers or covert techniques like fingerprinting." -- https://blog.google/products/chrome/update-testing-privacy-sandbox-web/ https://blog.google/products/chrome/update-testing-privacy-s...