2 ms·
I do love when rhetorical questions actually have a simple answer. I'll admit I had a similar thought as GP (though I wouldn't have posted that thought as a co
by freedomben 3y ago
I do love when rhetorical questions actually have a simple answer. I'll admit I had a similar thought as GP (though I wouldn't have posted that thought as a comment without at least taking a look to verify my assumptions). I'm glad to see that it isn't a simple conflict-of-interest with their business that is holding it up.
A great pro-tip I try to follow (but sometimes fail since this is human nature): don't make assumptions, and don't be over-confident if you don't know. It can be especially embarrassing if TFA is quite short and well covered
- surajrmal 3y agoI think the CMA does think it's a conflict of interest which is why they are stepping in. It seems like they think it's in Google's favor to remove third party cookies without a replacement.
- freedomben 3y agoThanks that is interesting. To be clear though I meant a conflict-of-interest inside of Google. E.g. the ad division influencing the browser division to slow the roll to avoid damaging revenues/sales. But I hadn't even considered that this might benefit Google, but that certainly makes sense! I'm grateful for good old British skepticism :-) Looking forward to their findings.
- nolist_policy 3y agoMore importantly, it is also in customers favor to remove third party cookies.