4 ms·

They should’ve started with user choice as the first milestone when it was originally announced. Similar to Apple’s app tracking. Or just get rid of cookies and

by fumar 2y ago

They should’ve started with user choice as the first milestone when it was originally announced. Similar to Apple’s app tracking. Or just get rid of cookies and let ad tech be less invasive.

agwa 2y ago
> Or just get rid of cookies and let ad tech be less invasive. They tried to get rid of third-party cookies and regulators wouldn't let them do that.
- InTheArena 2y ago
  primarily because it would put any publisher or site not named Facebook or Google out of business, or have to shift all of their ads to google or facebook. You would have to break up Google in order for them not to have a a insane market advantage if they got rid of 3pc. Google would still have access to all their consumer markets, google analytics, etc, and everyone else would have to do business with google or go out of business.
- fumar 2y ago
  Why? I get that publishers want ads but cookies are not required for ads. Safari and Firefox have 3P cookie restrictions already.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    Because Google (the ad provider) gets to do all the tracking without third-party cookies (by asking Google (the web browser) for that information), which the other ad providers can't do.
    - agwa 2y ago
      I'm not aware of any functionality in Chrome that allows Google to get tracking data that other ad providers can't, but it seems like regulators should target that instead of preventing Chrome from banning third-party cookies.
      - odo1242 2y ago
        When you sign into Chrome, you allow Google to associate websites you visit with your Google account.
      - jeroenhd 2y ago
        Google's competitors complained that they couldn't track users enough with Google's proposed new scheme. They had to bend over backwards and make privacy worse to make the scheme pass the regulators. Market regulators don't care about privacy or data safety, they care about whether your local ad agency can make as much money as Google can doing the same stuff.
  - agwa 2y ago
    Ad revenue declines without 3P cookies[1]. Safari and Firefox have less market share than Chrome and aren't made by a giant advertising company so they don't attract the same scrutiny. When Google tries to restrict 3P cookies it creates the appearance that they're just trying to kneecap their competitors, whether that's true or not. [1] https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/15189422 https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/15189422
legitster 2y ago
Cookies are honestly the least bad part of the problem. Cookies are cross-platform, and transparent. I can see and edit and erase my cookies locally at any time. I would rather tighten the rules around privacy and keep cookies around rather than the opposite.

by fumar 2y ago

They should’ve started with user choice as the first milestone when it was originally announced. Similar to Apple’s app tracking. Or just get rid of cookies and let ad tech be less invasive.

agwa 2y ago

> Or just get rid of cookies and let ad tech be less invasive. They tried to get rid of third-party cookies and regulators wouldn't let them do that.

InTheArena 2y ago
primarily because it would put any publisher or site not named Facebook or Google out of business, or have to shift all of their ads to google or facebook. You would have to break up Google in order for them not to have a a insane market advantage if they got rid of 3pc. Google would still have access to all their consumer markets, google analytics, etc, and everyone else would have to do business with google or go out of business.
fumar 2y ago
Why? I get that publishers want ads but cookies are not required for ads. Safari and Firefox have 3P cookie restrictions already.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  Because Google (the ad provider) gets to do all the tracking without third-party cookies (by asking Google (the web browser) for that information), which the other ad providers can't do.
  - agwa 2y ago
    I'm not aware of any functionality in Chrome that allows Google to get tracking data that other ad providers can't, but it seems like regulators should target that instead of preventing Chrome from banning third-party cookies.
    - odo1242 2y ago
      When you sign into Chrome, you allow Google to associate websites you visit with your Google account.
    - jeroenhd 2y ago
      Google's competitors complained that they couldn't track users enough with Google's proposed new scheme. They had to bend over backwards and make privacy worse to make the scheme pass the regulators. Market regulators don't care about privacy or data safety, they care about whether your local ad agency can make as much money as Google can doing the same stuff.
- agwa 2y ago
  Ad revenue declines without 3P cookies[1]. Safari and Firefox have less market share than Chrome and aren't made by a giant advertising company so they don't attract the same scrutiny. When Google tries to restrict 3P cookies it creates the appearance that they're just trying to kneecap their competitors, whether that's true or not. [1] https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/15189422 https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/15189422

legitster 2y ago

Cookies are honestly the least bad part of the problem. Cookies are cross-platform, and transparent. I can see and edit and erase my cookies locally at any time. I would rather tighten the rules around privacy and keep cookies around rather than the opposite.