6 ms·

I know a lot of people don't like the Topics API and FLoC (which I believe is dead now, but was kind of the MVP for Topics) and I'm not saying it's perfect, but

I know a lot of people don't like the Topics API and FLoC (which I believe is dead now, but was kind of the MVP for Topics) and I'm not saying it's perfect, but from everything I've read on it, it seems like a massive improvement over third party cookies. Am I wrong in thinking this way? I realize there are plenty of people out there who just don't want to be tracked at all, but I don't think that option was really ever on the table for Chrome users. To me this seems like a step in the right direction. If there's anyone who can explain the downsides of this new API and has an alternative other than "don't track me" I would honestly love to hear it. I'm sure there are some, but I'm struggling to think of them.

candiddevmike 3y ago
Why have either? What _user_ wants this? I really struggle to find people that want to be tracked, even anonymously, that have no ties to said tracking companies.
- tomComb 3y ago
  I want to use internet services that have no paywall. I want them to get paid, with a minimum of ads. And I prefer ads that might be relevant to me, and which might provide value even for small advertisers (as opposed to brand advertising). That all requires data collection and that’s ok with me as long as they handle it responsibly (oddly the ones that handle users data responsibly – never selling or leaking yet - seem to be the most hated). I have no ties to said tracking companies, or any other skin in this game.
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    Do you think that ads will provide them with enough revenue? Based on the current status-quo, ad-supported only services seem to be waning. Businesses would much prefer paying customers vs ad-supported, I think.
  - SllX 3y ago
    If that’s a choice you get to make without that choice being forced upon me because I clicked a link, great! We’re both happy. I don’t mind a consent wall, or a paywall, but what I do mind is that the second I click a link, the page is already trying to turn my user agent against me to glean as much information about me as possible.
  - rurp 3y ago
    It's fine if you want to opt into any tracking info you want. The issue is that it should be opt in and a clear choice, not obfuscated in the background or framed as if it's necessary for basic services to work.
- jsnell 3y ago
  At least the EU [0], UK [1] and two different US government entities [2][3] have all made it clear that Chrome can't disable 3rd party cookies without a replacement that keeps (non-Google) ad networks competitive. The theory seems to be that it would be anti-competitive, because Google doesn't actually need either 3p cookies or a replacement mechanism while ad networks do. So unfortunately the "neither" choice is not an option here. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/eu-antitrust-regulators-launch-probe-into-googles-floc-plan/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/eu-antitrust-reg... [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-keep-close-eye-on-google-as-it-secures-final-privacy-sandbox-commitments https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-keep-close-eye-on-... [2] https://www.engadget.com/google-antitrust-doj-cookies-privacy-sandbox-152453575.html https://www.engadget.com/google-antitrust-doj-cookies-privac... [3] https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/16/22333848/google-antitrust-lawsuit-texas-complaint-chrome-privacy https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/16/22333848/google-antitrust...
  - chrismorgan 3y ago
    I’m not deeply familiar with things, but I don’t think that stuff should be relevant: if Google is getting information that other ad networks can’t (and I have no real idea about this), that’s a problem, and it’s unfair advantage and anticompetitive behaviour even while third-party cookies are a thing—just perhaps less extreme than after third-party cookies are removed. But any probes then should be more along the lines of “why is google.com privileged” rather than “Google must add the Topics API before removing third-party cookies”. Safari and Firefox already disabled third-party cookies a while back. There’s no problem with that, right?
    - jsnell 3y ago
      You entire premise is flawed since google.com is not privileged in this. It has exactly the same capabilities of setting first-party cookies as every domain. "But Apple's and Mozilla's moms let them disable third-party cookies" isn't likely to be a winning argument in court when the major Western competition authorities threatened you in advance with anti-trust action.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- notatoad 3y ago
  do users want it? no. do users not want it? also, for the most part, no. people don't care about this nearly as much as you want them to. fully informed and knowledgeable people can make a decision that they don't really mind if advertisers know a bit about them. especially when it's as benign as knowing what general topics they might be interested in.
  - TechBro8615 3y ago
    This reads like "only tell people who ask, exploit those we can get away with, and when they start to catch onto our schemes, obfuscate the system by adding new complexity and telling them it's for their own good, then repeat."
- superfrank 3y ago
  > What _user_ wants this? You're asking the wrong question. Chrome users are the product not the customer. Google cares about Chrome users in the same way a farmers care about their cows that they are raising to be slaughtered. Asking Chrome users if they want to be tracked is like asking cows if they want to live their lives in a fenced in enclosure (or worse). It doesn't really matter what they want unless not doing what they want affects the bottom line (and even then, there are trade offs). The correct question to be asking is "Which of Google's customers (the people paying for ads) want this?" and the answers seems to be most, if not all, of them.
chrismorgan 3y ago
“Topics API or third-party cookies” kinda goes beyond being a false dichotomy to being a blatant lie. The conflict of interest demonstrates how Google is unfit as the custodian of a leading browser. This is a single-vendor thing to bolster their own interests and which they can only do because they’re a leading advertising company, and which no one else supports in any way. Firefox and Safari have already stopped supporting third-party cookies, and nothing bad happened. (There are a few cases here and there of legitimate systems breaking due to relying on third-party cookies for things like login, and these have broken in Firefox and Safari, but they’ll break in Chromium too when it kills off third-party cookies, and the Topics API is completely irrelevant to these cases, being exclusively about advertising interests, so these cases aren’t part of the “third-party cookies or Topics API” deceit.) Note also how Apple and Mozilla have both taken negative positions on the Topics API: it’s extremely unlikely either’s browser engine will ever support it, making the falseness of the dichotomy even clearer. Useful further reading, identifying various concrete problems with the Topics API (if “but why should it even exist at all?” wasn’t enough): https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/111 https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/111 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/622 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/622 https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726 https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726
- superfrank 3y ago
  > “Topics API or third-party cookies” kinda goes beyond being a false dichotomy to being a blatant lie. From my original post: > If there's anyone who [...] has an alternative other than "don't track me" I would honestly love to hear it. I'm sure there are some, but I'm struggling to think of them. Not only did I never say that the only options were "Topics API or third-party cookies", I explicitly said that I'm sure there were other options, but that I just didn't know what they were.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  > Firefox and Safari have already stopped supporting third-party cookies, and nothing bad happened. When did Firefox stop accepting 3P cookies by default? I thought that was only in private mode.
SllX 3y ago
> If there's anyone who can explain the downsides of this new API and has an alternative other than "don't track me" I would honestly love to hear it. “Don’t track me” should be sufficient.
TechBro8615 3y ago
Do you work at Google? The reason I ask is because I fail to understand how the premise of "topics" or "floc," or whatever you want to call it, benefits anyone other than Google shareholders and employees. Browsers don't need to be advertising machines, and the idea that somehow ads need to "work" or be "private enough" is a false premise that only exists because Google depends on tracking users so they can extract maximum prices from advertisers. The problem is not that there's a "downside" to the feature - the problem is that it exists at all.
- Natuerich 3y ago
  While Google does has an interest in people having a secure tool to use their services, the fundamental way Google is as accessable to everyone as it is is because of ads It's shitty. Now Google makes this shitty existing architecture better. At least I agree to the op and think this is better.
- peter422 3y ago
  I don’t work at Google and don’t use ad blockers because I want the sites I visit to get paid. Anyways, all things being equal, I’d prefer more relevant ads.
  - userbinator 3y ago
    Drink verification can.
  - type0 3y ago
    How about getting malware through ad networks?
- superfrank 3y ago
  I don't work at Google and never have. I'm just being realistic. Companies don't make products out of the goodness of their hearts, they create products to make money. I'm not saying that's good or right, but that's just how the world is. Google makes money off advertising and advertisers want to be able to target certain audiences. It's important to remember that you and I are not Google's customer in this case. We are the product. Advertisers are the customer. Google is going to give advertisers *something* to be able to target ads toward certain audiences because that's what Google's customers want and that's what they will pay for. If Google doesn't give that to them, they will take their business else where. We (Chrome users) have some say in the direction of the product because there's always the threat that Chrome users will leave en masse, but for the most part, our wants are secondary to the wants of the people who are directly giving Google money. My comment is starting from the following assumption - We don't get a choice in this matter and some feature for targeted advertising is going to exist. So my question is, are there any ways in which this is worse than the current solution (third party cookies) or are there any other alternatives that would provide Google's customers (advertisers) with similar features that are invasive to Chrome users.
dahwolf 3y ago
The alternative is context-sensitive ads based on surrounding context.
VPenkov 3y ago
> To me this seems like a step in the right direction This implies that there are more steps in that direction. Can you think of any follow-up steps that are in favor of the user? Or do you think it's more realistic that advertisers regain their former superpowers? I don't mean to nitpick your phrasing, I'd like to understand if there's some long-term benefit to users that I don't see.
summerlight 3y ago
And surprising to many ordinary HN readers, it is actually better for Google to deprecate 3p cookie as early as possible since the digital ads market competes on finite budget and whenever something uncertain happens it almost always works in a way that benefits big, established players. Of course other small players definitely understand this and has approached to competition regulation entities so Google cannot simply get rid of 3rd party cookies and kick the ladder... Advertising is an extremely optimized business sector and its landscape is not that simple; no one is going to get everything they want.
tomjen3 3y ago
I cannot understand the problem in just showing ads based on the content of the website I am visiting. You don't need to spy on me to realise that I am interested in needlework if I am on a site called threadsandneedles.com Meanwhile the ads that do track me are annoying as hell and frequently show shit I am not the least interested in (Facebook knows I work in IT, why my timeline isn't full of cool as hell gadgets I will never know).
scarface_74 3y ago
> If there's anyone who can explain the downsides of this new API and has an alternative other than "don't track me" Exactly what’s wrong with that?
illiac786 3y ago
The other answers seem to completely miss your point. You're not asking "is this good" you're asking " is it less worse than status quo". I think it's a fair question. From my non-expert point of view it's actually less bad, but I use Firefox, with unlock and some fingerprinting blockers so I'm certainly not the target demographic. What I wish would be possible is to forbid websites to break functionality of 3rd party cookies are not enabled...

candiddevmike 3y ago

Why have either? What _user_ wants this? I really struggle to find people that want to be tracked, even anonymously, that have no ties to said tracking companies.

tomComb 3y ago
I want to use internet services that have no paywall. I want them to get paid, with a minimum of ads. And I prefer ads that might be relevant to me, and which might provide value even for small advertisers (as opposed to brand advertising). That all requires data collection and that’s ok with me as long as they handle it responsibly (oddly the ones that handle users data responsibly – never selling or leaking yet - seem to be the most hated). I have no ties to said tracking companies, or any other skin in this game.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  Do you think that ads will provide them with enough revenue? Based on the current status-quo, ad-supported only services seem to be waning. Businesses would much prefer paying customers vs ad-supported, I think.
- SllX 3y ago
  If that’s a choice you get to make without that choice being forced upon me because I clicked a link, great! We’re both happy. I don’t mind a consent wall, or a paywall, but what I do mind is that the second I click a link, the page is already trying to turn my user agent against me to glean as much information about me as possible.
- rurp 3y ago
  It's fine if you want to opt into any tracking info you want. The issue is that it should be opt in and a clear choice, not obfuscated in the background or framed as if it's necessary for basic services to work.
jsnell 3y ago
At least the EU [0], UK [1] and two different US government entities [2][3] have all made it clear that Chrome can't disable 3rd party cookies without a replacement that keeps (non-Google) ad networks competitive. The theory seems to be that it would be anti-competitive, because Google doesn't actually need either 3p cookies or a replacement mechanism while ad networks do. So unfortunately the "neither" choice is not an option here. [0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/eu-antitrust-regulators-launch-probe-into-googles-floc-plan/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/eu-antitrust-reg... [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-keep-close-eye-on-google-as-it-secures-final-privacy-sandbox-commitments https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-keep-close-eye-on-... [2] https://www.engadget.com/google-antitrust-doj-cookies-privacy-sandbox-152453575.html https://www.engadget.com/google-antitrust-doj-cookies-privac... [3] https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/16/22333848/google-antitrust-lawsuit-texas-complaint-chrome-privacy https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/16/22333848/google-antitrust...
- chrismorgan 3y ago
  I’m not deeply familiar with things, but I don’t think that stuff should be relevant: if Google is getting information that other ad networks can’t (and I have no real idea about this), that’s a problem, and it’s unfair advantage and anticompetitive behaviour even while third-party cookies are a thing—just perhaps less extreme than after third-party cookies are removed. But any probes then should be more along the lines of “why is google.com privileged” rather than “Google must add the Topics API before removing third-party cookies”. Safari and Firefox already disabled third-party cookies a while back. There’s no problem with that, right?
  - jsnell 3y ago
    You entire premise is flawed since google.com is not privileged in this. It has exactly the same capabilities of setting first-party cookies as every domain. "But Apple's and Mozilla's moms let them disable third-party cookies" isn't likely to be a winning argument in court when the major Western competition authorities threatened you in advance with anti-trust action.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
notatoad 3y ago
do users want it? no. do users not want it? also, for the most part, no. people don't care about this nearly as much as you want them to. fully informed and knowledgeable people can make a decision that they don't really mind if advertisers know a bit about them. especially when it's as benign as knowing what general topics they might be interested in.
- TechBro8615 3y ago
  This reads like "only tell people who ask, exploit those we can get away with, and when they start to catch onto our schemes, obfuscate the system by adding new complexity and telling them it's for their own good, then repeat."
superfrank 3y ago
> What _user_ wants this? You're asking the wrong question. Chrome users are the product not the customer. Google cares about Chrome users in the same way a farmers care about their cows that they are raising to be slaughtered. Asking Chrome users if they want to be tracked is like asking cows if they want to live their lives in a fenced in enclosure (or worse). It doesn't really matter what they want unless not doing what they want affects the bottom line (and even then, there are trade offs). The correct question to be asking is "Which of Google's customers (the people paying for ads) want this?" and the answers seems to be most, if not all, of them.

chrismorgan 3y ago

“Topics API or third-party cookies” kinda goes beyond being a false dichotomy to being a blatant lie. The conflict of interest demonstrates how Google is unfit as the custodian of a leading browser. This is a single-vendor thing to bolster their own interests and which they can only do because they’re a leading advertising company, and which no one else supports in any way. Firefox and Safari have already stopped supporting third-party cookies, and nothing bad happened. (There are a few cases here and there of legitimate systems breaking due to relying on third-party cookies for things like login, and these have broken in Firefox and Safari, but they’ll break in Chromium too when it kills off third-party cookies, and the Topics API is completely irrelevant to these cases, being exclusively about advertising interests, so these cases aren’t part of the “third-party cookies or Topics API” deceit.) Note also how Apple and Mozilla have both taken negative positions on the Topics API: it’s extremely unlikely either’s browser engine will ever support it, making the falseness of the dichotomy even clearer. Useful further reading, identifying various concrete problems with the Topics API (if “but why should it even exist at all?” wasn’t enough): https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/111 https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/111 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/622 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/622 https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726 https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726

superfrank 3y ago
> “Topics API or third-party cookies” kinda goes beyond being a false dichotomy to being a blatant lie. From my original post: > If there's anyone who [...] has an alternative other than "don't track me" I would honestly love to hear it. I'm sure there are some, but I'm struggling to think of them. Not only did I never say that the only options were "Topics API or third-party cookies", I explicitly said that I'm sure there were other options, but that I just didn't know what they were.
paulryanrogers 3y ago
> Firefox and Safari have already stopped supporting third-party cookies, and nothing bad happened. When did Firefox stop accepting 3P cookies by default? I thought that was only in private mode.

SllX 3y ago

> If there's anyone who can explain the downsides of this new API and has an alternative other than "don't track me" I would honestly love to hear it. “Don’t track me” should be sufficient.

TechBro8615 3y ago

Do you work at Google? The reason I ask is because I fail to understand how the premise of "topics" or "floc," or whatever you want to call it, benefits anyone other than Google shareholders and employees. Browsers don't need to be advertising machines, and the idea that somehow ads need to "work" or be "private enough" is a false premise that only exists because Google depends on tracking users so they can extract maximum prices from advertisers. The problem is not that there's a "downside" to the feature - the problem is that it exists at all.

Natuerich 3y ago
While Google does has an interest in people having a secure tool to use their services, the fundamental way Google is as accessable to everyone as it is is because of ads It's shitty. Now Google makes this shitty existing architecture better. At least I agree to the op and think this is better.
peter422 3y ago
I don’t work at Google and don’t use ad blockers because I want the sites I visit to get paid. Anyways, all things being equal, I’d prefer more relevant ads.
- userbinator 3y ago
  Drink verification can.
- type0 3y ago
  How about getting malware through ad networks?
superfrank 3y ago
I don't work at Google and never have. I'm just being realistic. Companies don't make products out of the goodness of their hearts, they create products to make money. I'm not saying that's good or right, but that's just how the world is. Google makes money off advertising and advertisers want to be able to target certain audiences. It's important to remember that you and I are not Google's customer in this case. We are the product. Advertisers are the customer. Google is going to give advertisers *something* to be able to target ads toward certain audiences because that's what Google's customers want and that's what they will pay for. If Google doesn't give that to them, they will take their business else where. We (Chrome users) have some say in the direction of the product because there's always the threat that Chrome users will leave en masse, but for the most part, our wants are secondary to the wants of the people who are directly giving Google money. My comment is starting from the following assumption - We don't get a choice in this matter and some feature for targeted advertising is going to exist. So my question is, are there any ways in which this is worse than the current solution (third party cookies) or are there any other alternatives that would provide Google's customers (advertisers) with similar features that are invasive to Chrome users.

dahwolf 3y ago

The alternative is context-sensitive ads based on surrounding context.

VPenkov 3y ago

> To me this seems like a step in the right direction This implies that there are more steps in that direction. Can you think of any follow-up steps that are in favor of the user? Or do you think it's more realistic that advertisers regain their former superpowers? I don't mean to nitpick your phrasing, I'd like to understand if there's some long-term benefit to users that I don't see.

summerlight 3y ago

And surprising to many ordinary HN readers, it is actually better for Google to deprecate 3p cookie as early as possible since the digital ads market competes on finite budget and whenever something uncertain happens it almost always works in a way that benefits big, established players. Of course other small players definitely understand this and has approached to competition regulation entities so Google cannot simply get rid of 3rd party cookies and kick the ladder... Advertising is an extremely optimized business sector and its landscape is not that simple; no one is going to get everything they want.

tomjen3 3y ago

I cannot understand the problem in just showing ads based on the content of the website I am visiting. You don't need to spy on me to realise that I am interested in needlework if I am on a site called threadsandneedles.com Meanwhile the ads that do track me are annoying as hell and frequently show shit I am not the least interested in (Facebook knows I work in IT, why my timeline isn't full of cool as hell gadgets I will never know).

scarface_74 3y ago

> If there's anyone who can explain the downsides of this new API and has an alternative other than "don't track me" Exactly what’s wrong with that?

illiac786 3y ago

The other answers seem to completely miss your point. You're not asking "is this good" you're asking " is it less worse than status quo". I think it's a fair question. From my non-expert point of view it's actually less bad, but I use Firefox, with unlock and some fingerprinting blockers so I'm certainly not the target demographic. What I wish would be possible is to forbid websites to break functionality of 3rd party cookies are not enabled...