4 ms·
Hahaha...Oh, you're serious. Let me laugh harder... The CMA has specifically mentioned that just blocking 3rd party cookies would provide Google an unfair comp
by IX-103 2y ago
Hahaha...Oh, you're serious. Let me laugh harder...
The CMA has specifically mentioned that just blocking 3rd party cookies would provide Google an unfair competitive advantage because their large web presence allows them to develop better user advertising profiles based on just first party information. Advertisers without a large first party user base (because they only do advertising) would not be able to develop user profiles.
The whole privacy sandbox effort it's supposed to level the playing field between large content providers that are also advertisers (Google, Facebook, etc) and providers that only do advertising (Criteo, RTBHouse, etc). Google couldn't drop 3rd party cookies support without Privacy Sandbox.
- jiveturkey 2y agoI couldn't find a citation via google but perplexity helped me find [0] which does state your point clearly. So why are they allowed to have disabling them as an option at all? Since by that argument, customers that disable for privacy, further entrench google. [0] https://www.adexchanger.com/marketers/the-uks-cma-wants-ad-tech-to-spill-all-the-tea-on-their-privacy-sandbox-concerns/ https://www.adexchanger.com/marketers/the-uks-cma-wants-ad-t...