4 ms·

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 fo

by 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.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
riku_iki 3y ago
> My recommendation is to both disable third party cookies and this new thing. You don't need either of them. then you will see random low quality ads instead of something you may be interested in
- mehlmao 3y ago
  We could have privacy protection as the default, and then you can opt-in to sharing your personal life with hundreds of companies so they can show you more relevant ads. Since everyone loves relevant ads, they'd be sure to opt-in, right?
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    there are such browsers and search engines, but looks like majority prefers to use services with quality backed by revenue from relevant ads.
- Larrikin 3y ago
  But if I block ads in my browsers, at the router level through Ad Guard, route all my personal devices through Tailscale, and use Firefox then I won't see those either.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    I think eventually Ads industry will catch up on those like you if it will threaten Ads revenue in significant volumes. There were news already that they block people from playing youtube videos if they blocked ads.
- kccqzy 3y ago
  That's a fine choice by me. In the rare scenarios I turn off my ad blocker, I want to see generic badly targeted ads, not ads precisely engineered to cause me to make a purchase or change my worldview.
  - kstrauser 3y ago
nottorp 3y ago
> It's a government mandated bullshit Who says that, google? To make an analogy, don't believe any EU country government when they blame some EU directive for a new law.
- kccqzy 3y ago
  The CMA. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62052c52e90e077f7881c975/Google_Sandbox_.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62052c52e90e0...

by kccqzy 3y ago

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.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

riku_iki 3y ago

> My recommendation is to both disable third party cookies and this new thing. You don't need either of them. then you will see random low quality ads instead of something you may be interested in

mehlmao 3y ago
We could have privacy protection as the default, and then you can opt-in to sharing your personal life with hundreds of companies so they can show you more relevant ads. Since everyone loves relevant ads, they'd be sure to opt-in, right?
- riku_iki 3y ago
  there are such browsers and search engines, but looks like majority prefers to use services with quality backed by revenue from relevant ads.
Larrikin 3y ago
But if I block ads in my browsers, at the router level through Ad Guard, route all my personal devices through Tailscale, and use Firefox then I won't see those either.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  I think eventually Ads industry will catch up on those like you if it will threaten Ads revenue in significant volumes. There were news already that they block people from playing youtube videos if they blocked ads.
kccqzy 3y ago
That's a fine choice by me. In the rare scenarios I turn off my ad blocker, I want to see generic badly targeted ads, not ads precisely engineered to cause me to make a purchase or change my worldview.
- kstrauser 3y ago

nottorp 3y ago

> It's a government mandated bullshit Who says that, google? To make an analogy, don't believe any EU country government when they blame some EU directive for a new law.

kccqzy 3y ago
The CMA. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62052c52e90e077f7881c975/Google_Sandbox_.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62052c52e90e0...