4 ms·

Not yet but they can't just turn off third party cookies arbitrarily in their browser without giving time for sites and advertisers to update their systems to a

Not yet but they can't just turn off third party cookies arbitrarily in their browser without giving time for sites and advertisers to update their systems to account for the removal. They're already facing anticompetitive/monopoly scrutiny on many other fronts, they don't need to shoot themselves in the foot in the advertising space as well. Thus the first step is to implement a replacement technology first and then make the change.

koolba 3y ago
> Not yet but they can't just turn off third party cookies arbitrarily in their browser without giving time for sites and advertisers to update their systems to account for the removal. Of course they can. They just don’t want to.
- imajoredinecon 3y ago
  No, they literally can't. The UK Competition and Markets Authority made Google promise they won't remove 3rd-party cookies from Chrome before adding alternatives.
  - jesstaa 3y ago
    Sure they can. They just have to do it in a way that doesn't create a disadvantage for other advertising providers. Google isn't allowed to stop others tracking you without also removing their own ability to track you because that's anti-competitive.
    - JoshTriplett 3y ago
      You are assuming reasonableness on behalf of the regulators in question. In an ideal world, they hopefully said "you cannot give information to your own advertising/analytics division that you don't give to others". However, they could just as easily have said "you must provide either third-party cookies or a replacement for them", without offering the much more reasonable alternative of turning both off and not giving Google advertising/analytics any information either. So, what did the regulators actually say, and does it in fact allow Google to turn off third-party cookies without any replacement? If it does, then this is Google's fault for adding this feature in Chrome. If it doesn't, then this is the fault of bad regulation.
  - josefx 3y ago
    Google has a habit of limiting changes it does not like to specific countries. So if they are rolling out a UK mandated feature globally there is no question that Google is all for it.
JoshTriplett 3y ago
> Not yet but they can't just turn off third party cookies arbitrarily in their browser without giving time for sites and advertisers to update their systems to account for the removal. This is a good example of anticompetitive/anti-monopoly regulation not only not protecting consumers, but in fact making things actively worse. A better regulatory response would have been "having an advertising/analytics product and a browser product in one company is anticompetitive, split one of them into a separate business from the other, and then the browser product must not privilege the advertising/analytics product". Then the browser could, in fact, just disable third-party cookies without giving advertisers and analytics companies another alternative.
ndriscoll 3y ago
They could also not run a global surveillance panopticon so that there wouldn't be an unfair competitive advantage. Or telling the UK to get bent and that they won't offer Chrome there is apparently a viable strategy given recent developments with encrypted communication there. In any case, this is still strictly a privacy downgrade to turn on. It's still deceptive to imply turning it on improves privacy.

koolba 3y ago

imajoredinecon 3y ago
No, they literally can't. The UK Competition and Markets Authority made Google promise they won't remove 3rd-party cookies from Chrome before adding alternatives.
- jesstaa 3y ago
  Sure they can. They just have to do it in a way that doesn't create a disadvantage for other advertising providers. Google isn't allowed to stop others tracking you without also removing their own ability to track you because that's anti-competitive.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    You are assuming reasonableness on behalf of the regulators in question. In an ideal world, they hopefully said "you cannot give information to your own advertising/analytics division that you don't give to others". However, they could just as easily have said "you must provide either third-party cookies or a replacement for them", without offering the much more reasonable alternative of turning both off and not giving Google advertising/analytics any information either. So, what did the regulators actually say, and does it in fact allow Google to turn off third-party cookies without any replacement? If it does, then this is Google's fault for adding this feature in Chrome. If it doesn't, then this is the fault of bad regulation.
- josefx 3y ago
  Google has a habit of limiting changes it does not like to specific countries. So if they are rolling out a UK mandated feature globally there is no question that Google is all for it.

JoshTriplett 3y ago

> Not yet but they can't just turn off third party cookies arbitrarily in their browser without giving time for sites and advertisers to update their systems to account for the removal. This is a good example of anticompetitive/anti-monopoly regulation not only not protecting consumers, but in fact making things actively worse. A better regulatory response would have been "having an advertising/analytics product and a browser product in one company is anticompetitive, split one of them into a separate business from the other, and then the browser product must not privilege the advertising/analytics product". Then the browser could, in fact, just disable third-party cookies without giving advertisers and analytics companies another alternative.

ndriscoll 3y ago

They could also not run a global surveillance panopticon so that there wouldn't be an unfair competitive advantage. Or telling the UK to get bent and that they won't offer Chrome there is apparently a viable strategy given recent developments with encrypted communication there. In any case, this is still strictly a privacy downgrade to turn on. It's still deceptive to imply turning it on improves privacy.