4 ms·

Google's defense is apparently "well it's better than 3rd party cookies" Well we're getting rid of 3rd party cookies... so like, that was the absolute minimum

Google's defense is apparently "well it's better than 3rd party cookies" Well we're getting rid of 3rd party cookies... so like, that was the absolute minimum bar. It's a curious list of topics: https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics/blob/main/taxonomy_v2.md https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics/blob/main/... Does anyone know how the taxonomy was created.

adv0r 2y ago
from iab context taxonomy
treve 2y ago
I thought the removal of 3rd party cookies was also reversed.
afavour 2y ago
Narrator: Google was, in fact, not getting rid of third party cookies
- luckydata 2y ago
  Note the plan was abandoned to satiate UK regulators, not a decision made unilaterally by Google
  - afavour 2y ago
    No. Let’s be clear: Google absolutely could have continued in removing third party cookies. They’d be doing what Apple and Mozilla already do today, after all. The problem is that Google’s alternatives that still allow tracking by ad providers have run afoul of regulators and Google isn’t prepared to lose that ad revenue.
    - IshKebab 2y ago
      Apple and Mozilla can do it because they don't have as much browser market share as Google, and they don't run their own advertising businesses.
      - afavour 2y ago
        Yeah it's almost like there's an inherent conflict in one company being the leading browser provider and advertising broker!
- magicalhippo 2y ago
  Now you made me want to play The Stanley Parable again...
threeseed 2y ago
Getting rid of third party cookies will not be an issue for advertisers. They simply have websites use first party cookies, send the data server side to data harvesters, tie it all to a global user profile using either identifiers from the website or from fingerprinting and then serve targeted ads. i.e. Conversions API (Meta), Server Side GTM (Google) I would be surprised if most advertisers would even be interested in this topic API.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- remus 2y ago
  > They simply have websites use first party cookies, send the data server side to data harvesters, tie it all to a global user profile using either identifiers from the website or from fingerprinting and then serve targeted ads. This is legally tricky because GDPR and similar legislation requires getting explicit consent from users for this to happen. Currently this is not very well enforced (imo) but it seems likely that enforcement will become increasingly stringent in years to come.
- realusername 2y ago
  > They simply have websites use first party cookies, send the data server side to data harvesters, tie it all to a global user profile using either identifiers from the website or from fingerprinting and then serve targeted ads. That honestly sounds like circumvention of unauthorized access. That's just breaking software protections.
- wombarly 2y ago
  Websites are moving towards providing md5/sha1/sha256 hashes of your normalized email (stripping the + from gmail) or phone number to advertisers. A basically permanent ID. Unified ID2 is one version of this. The 3rd party cookie ban and heavy pushback against alternative solutions suggested by Google just pushed advertisers into going an even worse route privacy wise.
  - IshKebab 2y ago

adv0r 2y ago

from iab context taxonomy

treve 2y ago

I thought the removal of 3rd party cookies was also reversed.

afavour 2y ago

Narrator: Google was, in fact, not getting rid of third party cookies

luckydata 2y ago
Note the plan was abandoned to satiate UK regulators, not a decision made unilaterally by Google
- afavour 2y ago
  No. Let’s be clear: Google absolutely could have continued in removing third party cookies. They’d be doing what Apple and Mozilla already do today, after all. The problem is that Google’s alternatives that still allow tracking by ad providers have run afoul of regulators and Google isn’t prepared to lose that ad revenue.
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    Apple and Mozilla can do it because they don't have as much browser market share as Google, and they don't run their own advertising businesses.
    - afavour 2y ago
      Yeah it's almost like there's an inherent conflict in one company being the leading browser provider and advertising broker!
magicalhippo 2y ago
Now you made me want to play The Stanley Parable again...

threeseed 2y ago

Getting rid of third party cookies will not be an issue for advertisers. They simply have websites use first party cookies, send the data server side to data harvesters, tie it all to a global user profile using either identifiers from the website or from fingerprinting and then serve targeted ads. i.e. Conversions API (Meta), Server Side GTM (Google) I would be surprised if most advertisers would even be interested in this topic API.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
remus 2y ago
> They simply have websites use first party cookies, send the data server side to data harvesters, tie it all to a global user profile using either identifiers from the website or from fingerprinting and then serve targeted ads. This is legally tricky because GDPR and similar legislation requires getting explicit consent from users for this to happen. Currently this is not very well enforced (imo) but it seems likely that enforcement will become increasingly stringent in years to come.
realusername 2y ago
> They simply have websites use first party cookies, send the data server side to data harvesters, tie it all to a global user profile using either identifiers from the website or from fingerprinting and then serve targeted ads. That honestly sounds like circumvention of unauthorized access. That's just breaking software protections.
wombarly 2y ago
Websites are moving towards providing md5/sha1/sha256 hashes of your normalized email (stripping the + from gmail) or phone number to advertisers. A basically permanent ID. Unified ID2 is one version of this. The 3rd party cookie ban and heavy pushback against alternative solutions suggested by Google just pushed advertisers into going an even worse route privacy wise.
- IshKebab 2y ago