4 ms·

This was going to be the compromise that would allow Chrome to have a path towards deprecating third-party cookies without massively decreasing its ad revenue,

by btown 2y ago

This was going to be the compromise that would allow Chrome to have a path towards deprecating third-party cookies without massively decreasing its ad revenue, but they've walked away even from that: https://privacysandbox.com/news/privacy-sandbox-update/ https://privacysandbox.com/news/privacy-sandbox-update/ > Instead of deprecating third-party cookies, we would introduce a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing, and they’d be able to adjust that choice at any time. We're discussing this new path with regulators, and will engage with the industry as we roll this out... We'll continue to make the Privacy Sandbox APIs available and invest in them to further improve privacy and utility. Discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41038586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41038586 There are numerous ways that the Topics API could leak sensitive information (say, for instance, increased values for a set of topics statistically related to life events with legal/health consequences) - I'm glad that opposition is being highlighted. Apple's opposition comments are also worth reviewing: https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/111 https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/111

threeseed 2y ago
If ever there was an antitrust situation it is Google and Chromium. (a) Widespread use of the engine which means its behaviour is what is largely defining the rules of the web today. (b) It is driven by the financial interests of Google, specifically their Ads division. For example: Google recklessly adds every API under the sun even though they know they are being abused for fingerprinting. And they have long lived first party cookies which are used for re-targeting, attribution and conversion tracking. Both of which have major impacts to ad revenue.
- surajrmal 2y ago
  To be clear, it's actually everyone else that benefits from this sort of API. Regulators (eg CMA) are the ones stopping Google from removing third party cookie support from Chrome without a suitable replacement. The world is more complex than what you can see at a glance.
  - macNchz 2y ago
    Chrome was already several years behind the other browsers on 3rd party cookies before the UK CMA had anything to say.
sbrother 2y ago
How is this different from FLoC? My understanding was that Google came out with FLoC to solve this problem, but then scrapped it when it became clear that no one wanted it except Google.

by btown 2y ago

threeseed 2y ago

If ever there was an antitrust situation it is Google and Chromium. (a) Widespread use of the engine which means its behaviour is what is largely defining the rules of the web today. (b) It is driven by the financial interests of Google, specifically their Ads division. For example: Google recklessly adds every API under the sun even though they know they are being abused for fingerprinting. And they have long lived first party cookies which are used for re-targeting, attribution and conversion tracking. Both of which have major impacts to ad revenue.

surajrmal 2y ago
To be clear, it's actually everyone else that benefits from this sort of API. Regulators (eg CMA) are the ones stopping Google from removing third party cookie support from Chrome without a suitable replacement. The world is more complex than what you can see at a glance.
- macNchz 2y ago
  Chrome was already several years behind the other browsers on 3rd party cookies before the UK CMA had anything to say.

sbrother 2y ago

How is this different from FLoC? My understanding was that Google came out with FLoC to solve this problem, but then scrapped it when it became clear that no one wanted it except Google.