3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoLet's be honest, the headline is meant to be clickbait.
- flanked-evergl 3y agoThe 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