5 ms·

This applies to third-party cookies, right? So why does the article say "Killing Cookies" instead of "Killing Third-Party Cookies"?

joecasson 3y ago
You are correct - only third-party, cross domain cookies. WSJ and other writers simplify to "cookies" because it's a simpler headline and only a small percentage of people understand the difference (even tech workers!). It's terribly annoying that they do this because first party cookies are invaluable and will never go away until there is something just as easy to maintain state on on a website (e.g. remembering that you're logged in from page to page, session to session). Source - I work in marketing tech.
- willsmith72 3y ago
  I guess depends on the definition of tech workers, I haven't worked with engineers who would think google was actually killing all cookies. Only true if you included design, content, sales etc
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >first party cookies are invaluable I am coming to find I don't want cookies, including first-party, on the vast majority of websites. Specifically, I only want first-party cookies on websites I login to. Otherwise, I can't remember the last time in recent memory when first-party cookies benefitted me in some worthwhile way. They only serve to track me or otherwise disturb my peace for the benefit of the webmaster. So far I've been opening a lot of websites in Private Mode, but maybe it's just easier to blanket blacklist all cookies and then handpick the small number I want to whitelist.
  - jefftk 3y ago
    > Otherwise, I can't remember the last time in recent memory when first-party cookies benefitted me in some worthwhile way. A very standard example is when you put something in a shopping cart the site needs some way to record this, which requires cookies or other client-side storage. And if it's a site you've never bought from before you wouldn't be logged in.
  - mikeryan 3y ago
    First party cookies are how you’re authenticated on a website. They (or an equivalent mechanism) is the only way to save state and create the concept of a “session”.
    - Kbelicius 3y ago
      That is why GP said: "Specifically, I only want first-party cookies on websites I login to."
    - jefftk 3y ago
      > First party cookies are how you’re authenticated on a website Sure, but they said they were ok with first party cookies on sites they log in to.
  - godzillabrennus 3y ago
    Thanks to the EU, you need to enable Cookies to let a website remember you want to reject all Tracking/Cookies... Some adblockers do an okay job of hiding those requests, but others do not. It seems like modern web users need a browser that blocks trackers, an Authoritative DNS like Pi-Hole on the network that blocks trackers, an Authoritative DNS for Pi-Hole to query like NextDNS that blocks trackers, and, of course, a browser plug-in to augment the browsers tracker blocking ability like uBlock.
- flanked-evergl 3y ago
  > You are correct - only third-party, cross domain cookies. WSJ and other writers simplify to "cookies" because it's a simpler headline and only a small percentage of people understand the difference (even tech workers!). The "third-party" qualifier of the word "cookie" here is essential to what is happening, not incidental. It's like someone discovered a drug that kills all cancer cells, and then WSJ reports you discovered a drug that kills all cells. Third-party cookies are "frowned upon", normal cookies are essential for the web to function. This headline is just plain and simple wrong, it would not be acceptable to make false headlines about economics, politics, climate or anything else, so it's also not okay for them to use false headlines about tech. The article should be removed from HN.
- jefftk 3y ago
  In addition to being narrower than cookies it's also broader: they're phasing out all shared client-side storage in a third-party context. Imagine if a.example and b.example both iframed in a page from c.example. It doesn't matter whether the c.example page uses cookies, localStorage, IndexedDB, or something else: it can't share arbitrary state to recognize that the user on a.example is the same user as the one on b.example. It's common to use "cookies" to refer to any client side storage because at the time people first started talking about "cookies" the other forms didn't exist yet. This would all be much clearer if we talked about "cross-site tracking".
mdhb 3y ago
Because WSJs audience aren’t web developers.
- flanked-evergl 3y ago
  So it's okay for WSJ to give them false information, or what are you trying to say? Is it fine for WSJ to give me false information about the economy because I'm not an economist also?
  - mdhb 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - fsflover 3y ago
      Simplification must be done without completely changing the meaning. Sure, it's hard, which is why (useful) journalism is hard.
    - flanked-evergl 3y ago
      The headline is false. Google is not Killing Cookies. They are killing third-party cookies. False headlines are not simplified headlines. Telling readers something that is false is not making it easier for them to understand, it makes them misinformed.
      - mdhb 3y ago
        Maybe you should write to the editor and let them know your concerns.
tzs 3y ago
> So why does the article say "Killing Cookies" instead of "Killing Third-Party Cookies"? The article says > Cookies have been around since the early days of the web. Google’s changes target third-party cookies the online ad industry places on websites to track users around the internet and > Google’s changes don’t affect the kinds of cookies sites use to store basic information such as login details What you are talking about is the headline. The headline is not meant to be a TL;DR of the article. It is meant to give you enough idea of a general idea about the article to decide if it is likely to interest you.
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  Let's be honest, the headline is meant to be clickbait.
- flanked-evergl 3y ago
  The article says, in the 3rd paragraph: > By year’s end, Google plans to eliminate cookies for all Chrome users. Which is a false statement, and misinforms users. If it later on contradicts itself it really doesn't improve anything. Furthermore, making an accurate claim later does not excuse making a false claim earlier. I'm not sure WSJ needs any defending here, and I'm not sure why so many people want to excuse their bad practices. What they are doing is wrong, they should not do it, of course they will continue doing it, this is so common that it has a label to describe it, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect [1], but it is still not excusable. Maybe instead of defending WSJ, just expect better from them? [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_effect https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_effect
dang 3y ago
Added above. Thanks.

joecasson 3y ago

You are correct - only third-party, cross domain cookies. WSJ and other writers simplify to "cookies" because it's a simpler headline and only a small percentage of people understand the difference (even tech workers!). It's terribly annoying that they do this because first party cookies are invaluable and will never go away until there is something just as easy to maintain state on on a website (e.g. remembering that you're logged in from page to page, session to session). Source - I work in marketing tech.

willsmith72 3y ago
I guess depends on the definition of tech workers, I haven't worked with engineers who would think google was actually killing all cookies. Only true if you included design, content, sales etc
Dalewyn 3y ago
>first party cookies are invaluable I am coming to find I don't want cookies, including first-party, on the vast majority of websites. Specifically, I only want first-party cookies on websites I login to. Otherwise, I can't remember the last time in recent memory when first-party cookies benefitted me in some worthwhile way. They only serve to track me or otherwise disturb my peace for the benefit of the webmaster. So far I've been opening a lot of websites in Private Mode, but maybe it's just easier to blanket blacklist all cookies and then handpick the small number I want to whitelist.
- jefftk 3y ago
  > Otherwise, I can't remember the last time in recent memory when first-party cookies benefitted me in some worthwhile way. A very standard example is when you put something in a shopping cart the site needs some way to record this, which requires cookies or other client-side storage. And if it's a site you've never bought from before you wouldn't be logged in.
- mikeryan 3y ago
  First party cookies are how you’re authenticated on a website. They (or an equivalent mechanism) is the only way to save state and create the concept of a “session”.
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    That is why GP said: "Specifically, I only want first-party cookies on websites I login to."
  - jefftk 3y ago
    > First party cookies are how you’re authenticated on a website Sure, but they said they were ok with first party cookies on sites they log in to.
- godzillabrennus 3y ago
  Thanks to the EU, you need to enable Cookies to let a website remember you want to reject all Tracking/Cookies... Some adblockers do an okay job of hiding those requests, but others do not. It seems like modern web users need a browser that blocks trackers, an Authoritative DNS like Pi-Hole on the network that blocks trackers, an Authoritative DNS for Pi-Hole to query like NextDNS that blocks trackers, and, of course, a browser plug-in to augment the browsers tracker blocking ability like uBlock.
flanked-evergl 3y ago
> You are correct - only third-party, cross domain cookies. WSJ and other writers simplify to "cookies" because it's a simpler headline and only a small percentage of people understand the difference (even tech workers!). The "third-party" qualifier of the word "cookie" here is essential to what is happening, not incidental. It's like someone discovered a drug that kills all cancer cells, and then WSJ reports you discovered a drug that kills all cells. Third-party cookies are "frowned upon", normal cookies are essential for the web to function. This headline is just plain and simple wrong, it would not be acceptable to make false headlines about economics, politics, climate or anything else, so it's also not okay for them to use false headlines about tech. The article should be removed from HN.
jefftk 3y ago
In addition to being narrower than cookies it's also broader: they're phasing out all shared client-side storage in a third-party context. Imagine if a.example and b.example both iframed in a page from c.example. It doesn't matter whether the c.example page uses cookies, localStorage, IndexedDB, or something else: it can't share arbitrary state to recognize that the user on a.example is the same user as the one on b.example. It's common to use "cookies" to refer to any client side storage because at the time people first started talking about "cookies" the other forms didn't exist yet. This would all be much clearer if we talked about "cross-site tracking".

mdhb 3y ago

Because WSJs audience aren’t web developers.

flanked-evergl 3y ago
So it's okay for WSJ to give them false information, or what are you trying to say? Is it fine for WSJ to give me false information about the economy because I'm not an economist also?
- mdhb 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - fsflover 3y ago
    Simplification must be done without completely changing the meaning. Sure, it's hard, which is why (useful) journalism is hard.
  - flanked-evergl 3y ago
    The headline is false. Google is not Killing Cookies. They are killing third-party cookies. False headlines are not simplified headlines. Telling readers something that is false is not making it easier for them to understand, it makes them misinformed.
    - mdhb 3y ago
      Maybe you should write to the editor and let them know your concerns.

tzs 3y ago

> So why does the article say "Killing Cookies" instead of "Killing Third-Party Cookies"? The article says > Cookies have been around since the early days of the web. Google’s changes target third-party cookies the online ad industry places on websites to track users around the internet and > Google’s changes don’t affect the kinds of cookies sites use to store basic information such as login details What you are talking about is the headline. The headline is not meant to be a TL;DR of the article. It is meant to give you enough idea of a general idea about the article to decide if it is likely to interest you.

Ferret7446 3y ago
Let's be honest, the headline is meant to be clickbait.
flanked-evergl 3y ago
The article says, in the 3rd paragraph: > By year’s end, Google plans to eliminate cookies for all Chrome users. Which is a false statement, and misinforms users. If it later on contradicts itself it really doesn't improve anything. Furthermore, making an accurate claim later does not excuse making a false claim earlier. I'm not sure WSJ needs any defending here, and I'm not sure why so many people want to excuse their bad practices. What they are doing is wrong, they should not do it, of course they will continue doing it, this is so common that it has a label to describe it, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect [1], but it is still not excusable. Maybe instead of defending WSJ, just expect better from them? [1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_effect https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_effect

dang 3y ago

Added above. Thanks.