6 ms·

I heard about this the other day and didn’t think much of it. I got the actual update today on my work laptop and… just wow. How did the folks at Google ship t

I heard about this the other day and didn’t think much of it. I got the actual update today on my work laptop and… just wow. How did the folks at Google ship this with a straight face? The changeboarding modal basically lies to your face. I’ve always felt a little weird about Google’s tracking, but this takes it to another level. Creepy as heck.

arendtio 3y ago
When I saw that dialog, I didn't know which button to click. I knew I didn't want to share the topics I am interested in or have personalized / more relevant ads of any kind, but the text was so confusion and mixing so many things (like activate the privacy feature when in fact you are activating the tracking feature). In the end, I reverted to clicking the non-primary button (which you are not supposed to click) and checked in the settings everything was in order.
choppaface 3y ago
I’m thoroughly impressed how HN also buried this story so quickly; usually something so dramatic would stick on the front page for days. Speaks a lot about Google-biases in the content moderation of HN.
wbl 3y ago
Because they don't get to kill third party cookies without shipping it.
- hirsin 3y ago
  Context? That whole project was kind of a cluster when I was involved with it, how does this help? Or is it more, without a replacement for 3p cookie tracking they couldn't break it (useful uses of 3p cookies be damned)?
  - jsnell 3y ago
    Regulators in the US, EU and UK have made it clear that Chrome can't remove support for 3p cookies without building a replacement feature that works for non-Google ad networks.
    - chrismorgan 3y ago
      I’m still not sold on your take here. All of that stuff was from no later than mid-2021, back when Google was close to leading the way with this stuff, whereas now they’re just aligning with what everyone else is doing, and if Google isn’t using their privileged position with Chrome to give themselves (google.com or similar) more info than anyone else gets, there can be no credible antitrust argument any more (I say this with a straight face as a technologist). And the fact that other browsers refuse this Topics API would call it into question as a replacement for third-party tracker cookies anyway. (Related, comments by both of us within https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36713737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36713737 two months ago.)
      - summerlight 3y ago
        https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62052c52e90e077f7881c975/Google_Sandbox_.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62052c52e90e0... Whether you're convinced or not, this is the reality. Antitrust regulatories have done their homeworks and made it clear that Google alone cannot deprecate 3p cookie.
        hirsin 3y ago
        Which is weird since apple did that like three years ago? Just no one cared much since it was Safari. The linked document is about _replacing_ 3pc,not simply eliminating them, which seems a crucial distinction.
        Scion9066 3y ago
        Even if Google did not have the privacy sandbox features, they would still have first-party cookies and enough data from the services they run (Search, YouTube, etc). This puts Google in a different position than what Apple did and means they can't just do the same thing (for competition reasons): 3.34 The Privacy Sandbox Proposals aim to replace TPCs with alternative solutions, while leaving first-party cookies unaffected. TPCs are currently the principal means of achieving common identification of web users on web pages and are therefore a fundamental building block of the open display advertising used by publishers and ad tech providers. While publishers and ad tech providers depend on TPCs to collect information about web users and provide it to advertisers to target advertising and carry out related functionalities such as measuring conversions, the CMA is concerned that Google could use first-party cookies to perform these functionalities in competition with publishers and ad tech providers. 3.35 Although rivals can also use first-party data to provide digital advertising services (as the CMA found in the Market Study), their reach and the quality of their data is in many cases much more limited compared to that of Google. The extensive reach of Google’s user-facing services and its ability to connect data with greater precision (because of its large base of users logged into their Google account) provides Google with a significant data advantage over others.
kccqzy 3y ago
It's a government mandated bullshit as a replacement for third party cookies. When all other browsers disable third party cookies, everything is fine. Apple for example has disabled it for years. When Google does it, antitrust regulators fear that this could benefit Google ads more than non-Google ads. Hence this bullshit to "restore competitiveness" between Google and non-Google ad networks. My recommendation is to both disable third party cookies and this new thing. You don't need either of them.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  Some government regulators used to primarily focus on natural persons (i.e. citizens/consumers) and prioritize them above all else. Then neo-liberalism took over and they took a page out of the US’ playbook, and started prioritizing businesses. But unlike in the US they aren’t comfortable outright stating that they’re prioritizing business interests over consumer interests, so instead they do this weird thing in their communications where they act like they’re standing up for small businesses. Problem however is that their definition of “small” business is everything below a trillion euro market cap. It’s kind of jarring really, to hear them talk about having to protect those poor advertisers, like it’s some UNICEF donation ad.
- ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  > It's a government mandated bullshit This is definitely what Google would like you to believe. Considering indeed all other browsers have killed third party cookies, Google legally very well could as well. But they'd love you to believe they must provide a way to invade your privacy. The issue regulators had was Google retaining special access to user tracking, they have no problem with Google removing their own ability to track as well. Of course, that doesn't buy Larry and Sergey's next yacht or private island remodel.
  - modeless 3y ago
    > The issue regulators had was Google retaining special access to user tracking, they have no problem with Google removing their own ability to track as well. I don't think you understand the issue. Without third party cookies Google still has search ads while adtech competitors without a search engine are decimated. That's the antitrust concern.
nazka 3y ago
> How did the folks at Google ship this with a straight face? You have been doing 60-70 hours a week for a few years at startups that never took off. You tried to go into some big companies but got rejected several times. You managed to pass the first screening to the process at being hired at Google. You go through all the process. It’s long and tiring. Somehow you went through it after several weeks and so many steps. After several years in your career of not so successful job/startups this is like a huge thing. You can say to all your family and friends and girlfriend that you work at Google. The pay is great but the work is bad. They ask you to code more stuff to track people into Chrome. You evaluate what quitting would be like and what other opportunities like this you could have. And then I guess they are like hmm no. Let’s code this things from now on.
- choppaface 3y ago
  There are also a lot of Googlers who got in on their first or second try and genuinely do not understand end-users, do not WANT to understand end-users, and thus are very happy to implement this stuff. Also PMs who are extraordinarily metrics-focused and will buy the koolaid 100%
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  > The pay is great but the work is bad. In just about any other context this is called a bribe. But you're right. If that person doesn't do it, someone else will.
- mattgreenrocks 3y ago
  I’m convinced at least 75% of devs consider working at a FAANG to be the absolute apex of a career, regardless of what’s worked on. Which, to me, says it’s purely about prestige. It’s impossible to say for sure, but there’s a certain pervasive collective worship of these employers that will just not quit.
  - gen220 3y ago
    The collective worship is the set of people who (1a) have worked there previously and (1b) didn’t hate it, or (2) want to work there in the future. It’s a pretty large absolute number of people, although thanks to section 1 clause b, it’s growing smaller. YMMV, but “people who worship recent FAANG employment” can be a filter that’s positive to apply when seeking employment.
passion__desire 3y ago
Maybe they are talking a leaf out of Zuck's playbook. Two steps forward and one step back conditional on backlash. Reddit did this recently. Outrage can be managed until things cool down.
chaxor 3y ago
The fix sounds easy to me. Switch to a better browser.

arendtio 3y ago

When I saw that dialog, I didn't know which button to click. I knew I didn't want to share the topics I am interested in or have personalized / more relevant ads of any kind, but the text was so confusion and mixing so many things (like activate the privacy feature when in fact you are activating the tracking feature). In the end, I reverted to clicking the non-primary button (which you are not supposed to click) and checked in the settings everything was in order.

choppaface 3y ago

I’m thoroughly impressed how HN also buried this story so quickly; usually something so dramatic would stick on the front page for days. Speaks a lot about Google-biases in the content moderation of HN.

wbl 3y ago

Because they don't get to kill third party cookies without shipping it.

hirsin 3y ago
Context? That whole project was kind of a cluster when I was involved with it, how does this help? Or is it more, without a replacement for 3p cookie tracking they couldn't break it (useful uses of 3p cookies be damned)?
- jsnell 3y ago
  Regulators in the US, EU and UK have made it clear that Chrome can't remove support for 3p cookies without building a replacement feature that works for non-Google ad networks.
  - chrismorgan 3y ago
    I’m still not sold on your take here. All of that stuff was from no later than mid-2021, back when Google was close to leading the way with this stuff, whereas now they’re just aligning with what everyone else is doing, and if Google isn’t using their privileged position with Chrome to give themselves (google.com or similar) more info than anyone else gets, there can be no credible antitrust argument any more (I say this with a straight face as a technologist). And the fact that other browsers refuse this Topics API would call it into question as a replacement for third-party tracker cookies anyway. (Related, comments by both of us within https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36713737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36713737 two months ago.)
    - summerlight 3y ago
      https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62052c52e90e077f7881c975/Google_Sandbox_.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62052c52e90e0... Whether you're convinced or not, this is the reality. Antitrust regulatories have done their homeworks and made it clear that Google alone cannot deprecate 3p cookie.
      - hirsin 3y ago
        Which is weird since apple did that like three years ago? Just no one cared much since it was Safari. The linked document is about _replacing_ 3pc,not simply eliminating them, which seems a crucial distinction.
        Scion9066 3y ago
        Even if Google did not have the privacy sandbox features, they would still have first-party cookies and enough data from the services they run (Search, YouTube, etc). This puts Google in a different position than what Apple did and means they can't just do the same thing (for competition reasons): 3.34 The Privacy Sandbox Proposals aim to replace TPCs with alternative solutions, while leaving first-party cookies unaffected. TPCs are currently the principal means of achieving common identification of web users on web pages and are therefore a fundamental building block of the open display advertising used by publishers and ad tech providers. While publishers and ad tech providers depend on TPCs to collect information about web users and provide it to advertisers to target advertising and carry out related functionalities such as measuring conversions, the CMA is concerned that Google could use first-party cookies to perform these functionalities in competition with publishers and ad tech providers. 3.35 Although rivals can also use first-party data to provide digital advertising services (as the CMA found in the Market Study), their reach and the quality of their data is in many cases much more limited compared to that of Google. The extensive reach of Google’s user-facing services and its ability to connect data with greater precision (because of its large base of users logged into their Google account) provides Google with a significant data advantage over others.

kccqzy 3y ago

It's a government mandated bullshit as a replacement for third party cookies. When all other browsers disable third party cookies, everything is fine. Apple for example has disabled it for years. When Google does it, antitrust regulators fear that this could benefit Google ads more than non-Google ads. Hence this bullshit to "restore competitiveness" between Google and non-Google ad networks. My recommendation is to both disable third party cookies and this new thing. You don't need either of them.

turquoisevar 3y ago
Some government regulators used to primarily focus on natural persons (i.e. citizens/consumers) and prioritize them above all else. Then neo-liberalism took over and they took a page out of the US’ playbook, and started prioritizing businesses. But unlike in the US they aren’t comfortable outright stating that they’re prioritizing business interests over consumer interests, so instead they do this weird thing in their communications where they act like they’re standing up for small businesses. Problem however is that their definition of “small” business is everything below a trillion euro market cap. It’s kind of jarring really, to hear them talk about having to protect those poor advertisers, like it’s some UNICEF donation ad.
ocdtrekkie 3y ago
> It's a government mandated bullshit This is definitely what Google would like you to believe. Considering indeed all other browsers have killed third party cookies, Google legally very well could as well. But they'd love you to believe they must provide a way to invade your privacy. The issue regulators had was Google retaining special access to user tracking, they have no problem with Google removing their own ability to track as well. Of course, that doesn't buy Larry and Sergey's next yacht or private island remodel.
- modeless 3y ago
  > The issue regulators had was Google retaining special access to user tracking, they have no problem with Google removing their own ability to track as well. I don't think you understand the issue. Without third party cookies Google still has search ads while adtech competitors without a search engine are decimated. That's the antitrust concern.

nazka 3y ago

> How did the folks at Google ship this with a straight face? You have been doing 60-70 hours a week for a few years at startups that never took off. You tried to go into some big companies but got rejected several times. You managed to pass the first screening to the process at being hired at Google. You go through all the process. It’s long and tiring. Somehow you went through it after several weeks and so many steps. After several years in your career of not so successful job/startups this is like a huge thing. You can say to all your family and friends and girlfriend that you work at Google. The pay is great but the work is bad. They ask you to code more stuff to track people into Chrome. You evaluate what quitting would be like and what other opportunities like this you could have. And then I guess they are like hmm no. Let’s code this things from now on.

choppaface 3y ago
There are also a lot of Googlers who got in on their first or second try and genuinely do not understand end-users, do not WANT to understand end-users, and thus are very happy to implement this stuff. Also PMs who are extraordinarily metrics-focused and will buy the koolaid 100%
chiefalchemist 3y ago
> The pay is great but the work is bad. In just about any other context this is called a bribe. But you're right. If that person doesn't do it, someone else will.
mattgreenrocks 3y ago
I’m convinced at least 75% of devs consider working at a FAANG to be the absolute apex of a career, regardless of what’s worked on. Which, to me, says it’s purely about prestige. It’s impossible to say for sure, but there’s a certain pervasive collective worship of these employers that will just not quit.
- gen220 3y ago
  The collective worship is the set of people who (1a) have worked there previously and (1b) didn’t hate it, or (2) want to work there in the future. It’s a pretty large absolute number of people, although thanks to section 1 clause b, it’s growing smaller. YMMV, but “people who worship recent FAANG employment” can be a filter that’s positive to apply when seeking employment.

passion__desire 3y ago

Maybe they are talking a leaf out of Zuck's playbook. Two steps forward and one step back conditional on backlash. Reddit did this recently. Outrage can be managed until things cool down.

chaxor 3y ago

The fix sounds easy to me. Switch to a better browser.