4 ms·

Isn’t Google refusing to make changes that boost online privacy because it’ll tank their ad revenue?

elmerfud 2y ago
But I don't see how that equates to a monopoly. They certainly have the ability to direct their development of their product in the way that they want. Since the core foundation of their product is open and available to every other competing browser they could implement better privacy protections while still leveraging all of the other benefits of Chrome. If the edge browser was so much better and much better privacy wise or the kiwi browser or any of the others the internet can move fairly quickly from one choice to another when that choice is better. For all the downsides that Chrome has I don't see anything that fits the term better for my use case. I'm also guessing that most other users also haven't found anything "better"
- freeone3000 2y ago
  It’s horizontal tying. If Chrome was not owned by an ad company, the owners of chrome would push for instead of against privacy protections (see: firefox, safari). The browser monopoly, which Chrome sells at a loss, enables the ad company. This is the problem. Chromium does not get features Chrome does not need from Google. So anything against ads does not get upstreamed to Chromium. Chrome also is a major browser vendor, whereas kiwibrowser and opera are not, which means the standards boards listen to them more. If those seats were not owned by an ad company, standards would likely be different.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    As much as I find Chrome’s ownership and market share problematic, that doesn’t seem fair. What exactly do things like WebUSB and Web Bluetooth contribute to Google’s ad business? (Except if you mean that any new and initially exclusive feature bolsters Chrome’s dominance further, in which case I’d somewhat agree.)
    - JimDabell 2y ago
      > What exactly do things like WebUSB and Web Bluetooth contribute to Google’s ad business? Google keeps proposing specifications like Web USB, Web Bluetooth, Web MIDI, Web Serial, etc., and both Mozilla and Apple keep shooting them down on privacy and security grounds. Meanwhile Google ignores the problems and builds them into Chrome anyway, and guess what happens? They start getting used to fingerprint and track people. Who knows, maybe it’s just a coincidence that all of these technologies that advertisers can use to fingerprint and track people keep making their way into the browser owned by one of the world’s largest ad companies.
      - lxgr 2y ago
        How would you use WebUSB or Web Bluetooth for device fingerprinting? HID, mass storage devices etc. are required to be filtered by implementations, and why would I grant a random news or social media site access to my MiniDisc player, Arduino board, Bluetooth thermometer/hygrometer etc. when it asks for it? The prompts are pretty scary/disruptive, and I've never seen any website actually try (unlike for e.g. web push notifications, which are fairly private but can be super annoying).
        JimDabell 2y ago
        > why would I grant a random news or social media site access to my MiniDisc player, Arduino board, Bluetooth thermometer/hygrometer etc. when it asks for it? Part of the problem is that a vast number of users neither understand nor care about these prompts. They just click to make them go away. There’s a few long discussions on the unsuitability of these specifications in the Mozilla standards positions repo: Web Bluetooth: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95 Web USB: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100 Web MIDI: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/58 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/58 Web Serial: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/336 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/336 Here’s some Hacker News discussion about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679063
  - winterbloom 2y ago
    "Chromium does not get features Chrome does not need from Google" What does this mean?
    - ycombinatrix 2y ago
      "We already have this feature in Chrome, why would we let you add it to Chromium?"
- duped 2y ago
  The monopoly the DoJ is trying to break up isn't Chrome, it's Search. From TFA: > Antitrust enforcers want the judge to order Google to sell off Chrome — the most widely used browser worldwide — because it represents a key access point through which many people use its search engine, said the people.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > I don't see how that equates to a monopoly The monopoly is in ads. Google uses its control of Chrome to act uncompetitively in advertising.
- 3836293648 2y ago
  Monopolies aren't bad per se. Monopolies are bad because they allow you to abuse the market and consumers. If you can be similarly abusive without a full monopoly that's equally bad.
  - hinkley 2y ago
    Such as to track their every move and exploit or sell that data.
- devnullbrain 2y ago
  >Since the core foundation of their product is open and available to every other competing browser they could implement better privacy protections while still leveraging all of the other benefits of Chrome. With what funding? Chrome loses money. Edge loses money. Safari loses money. Firefox loses Google's money. Brave loses VC money. Without some endless source of money, funding you for an ulterior motive, you can't compete with them. Which is why: >For all the downsides that Chrome has I don't see anything that fits the term better for my use case. The anti-competitive practices ensure there can't be effective competition.
consumer451 2y ago
Isn't it even worse than that? Didn't they make changes via Manifest v3, which will not allow me to follow the FBI's advisory about using ad blockers, to make sure their ad revenue does not decline? I do realize you can still use uBlock, but my understanding is that updates will be slow rolled, correct? Doesn't this open the window to malicious people to serve me mal-ads?
- hinkley 2y ago
  M3 seems to be failing, but I agree that it matters that the tried.
- ycombinatrix 2y ago
  >I do realize you can still use uBlock No, you can't. You can use "uBlock origin lite" which is the manifest v3 version that doesn't work correctly.
teractiveodular 2y ago
Quite the opposite, Google is the key sponsor of Privacy Sandbox: https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/ https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/ Working out why they're doing this is left as an exercise to the reader.
- kivle 2y ago
  The whole reason for "privacy sandbox" is to still do user tracking, but do it in an anonymous way that they hope legislators won't go after. It's Google seeing the writing on the wall that legislation will soon ban third-party cookie tracking and fingerprinting and the like, so they need to be proactive and protect the ad tracking business. A better name for it would have been something like "anonymous user tracking / data collection", but "privacy sandbox" is probably a good marketing term to fuzz what it's really doing. To a normal user it makes it sounds like Google is doing something good and protecting them, while it's really just "please opt in to our new more anonymized tracking technology while still allowing us to track you".
  - teractiveodular 2y ago
    The entire point of Privacy Sandbox is to get away from tracking individuals and allow ad targeting of anonymous cohorts (interest groups) instead. https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/private-advertising/protected-audience https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/private-advert...
    - jcranmer 2y ago
      The root problem here is that users don't want any of these tracking alternatives. All of the other browsers have said "no thanks" to any of the alternatives, and already moved forward with blocking third-party cookies (the main vector for tracking). Chrome hasn't moved forward with this because their ability to still track you thanks you being logged into Google means that disadvantaging every ad provider paints a massive target on their backs for antitrust law (even more so than they already have). Hence their attempt to fix it by creating new vectors of tracking so they can get the privacy "win" of blocking third-party cookies.
wbl 2y ago
Everyone else's ad revenue. The UK computing regulator is the main player here.
jsnell 2y ago
No. They're not doing those changes because regulators like the DOJ[0] threatened them with anti-trust action if they did. That's the same DOJ that's now asking for Chrome to be divested. [0] https://www.engadget.com/google-antitrust-doj-cookies-privacy-sandbox-152453575.html?guccounter=1 https://www.engadget.com/google-antitrust-doj-cookies-privac...
- hinkley 2y ago
  Uh. That was not my understanding of that situation. Blocking third party cookies this way still leaves Google’s tools which people voluntarily install with access to data that now nobody else has access to.

But I don't see how that equates to a monopoly. They certainly have the ability to direct their development of their product in the way that they want. Since the core foundation of their product is open and available to every other competing browser they could implement better privacy protections while still leveraging all of the other benefits of Chrome. If the edge browser was so much better and much better privacy wise or the kiwi browser or any of the others the internet can move fairly quickly from one choice to another when that choice is better. For all the downsides that Chrome has I don't see anything that fits the term better for my use case. I'm also guessing that most other users also haven't found anything "better"

freeone3000 2y ago
It’s horizontal tying. If Chrome was not owned by an ad company, the owners of chrome would push for instead of against privacy protections (see: firefox, safari). The browser monopoly, which Chrome sells at a loss, enables the ad company. This is the problem. Chromium does not get features Chrome does not need from Google. So anything against ads does not get upstreamed to Chromium. Chrome also is a major browser vendor, whereas kiwibrowser and opera are not, which means the standards boards listen to them more. If those seats were not owned by an ad company, standards would likely be different.
- lxgr 2y ago
  As much as I find Chrome’s ownership and market share problematic, that doesn’t seem fair. What exactly do things like WebUSB and Web Bluetooth contribute to Google’s ad business? (Except if you mean that any new and initially exclusive feature bolsters Chrome’s dominance further, in which case I’d somewhat agree.)
  - JimDabell 2y ago
    > What exactly do things like WebUSB and Web Bluetooth contribute to Google’s ad business? Google keeps proposing specifications like Web USB, Web Bluetooth, Web MIDI, Web Serial, etc., and both Mozilla and Apple keep shooting them down on privacy and security grounds. Meanwhile Google ignores the problems and builds them into Chrome anyway, and guess what happens? They start getting used to fingerprint and track people. Who knows, maybe it’s just a coincidence that all of these technologies that advertisers can use to fingerprint and track people keep making their way into the browser owned by one of the world’s largest ad companies.
    - lxgr 2y ago
      How would you use WebUSB or Web Bluetooth for device fingerprinting? HID, mass storage devices etc. are required to be filtered by implementations, and why would I grant a random news or social media site access to my MiniDisc player, Arduino board, Bluetooth thermometer/hygrometer etc. when it asks for it? The prompts are pretty scary/disruptive, and I've never seen any website actually try (unlike for e.g. web push notifications, which are fairly private but can be super annoying).
      - JimDabell 2y ago
        > why would I grant a random news or social media site access to my MiniDisc player, Arduino board, Bluetooth thermometer/hygrometer etc. when it asks for it? Part of the problem is that a vast number of users neither understand nor care about these prompts. They just click to make them go away. There’s a few long discussions on the unsuitability of these specifications in the Mozilla standards positions repo: Web Bluetooth: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95 Web USB: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/100 Web MIDI: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/58 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/58 Web Serial: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/336 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/336 Here’s some Hacker News discussion about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23679063
- winterbloom 2y ago
  "Chromium does not get features Chrome does not need from Google" What does this mean?
  - ycombinatrix 2y ago
    "We already have this feature in Chrome, why would we let you add it to Chromium?"
duped 2y ago
The monopoly the DoJ is trying to break up isn't Chrome, it's Search. From TFA: > Antitrust enforcers want the judge to order Google to sell off Chrome — the most widely used browser worldwide — because it represents a key access point through which many people use its search engine, said the people.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> I don't see how that equates to a monopoly The monopoly is in ads. Google uses its control of Chrome to act uncompetitively in advertising.
3836293648 2y ago
Monopolies aren't bad per se. Monopolies are bad because they allow you to abuse the market and consumers. If you can be similarly abusive without a full monopoly that's equally bad.
- hinkley 2y ago
  Such as to track their every move and exploit or sell that data.
devnullbrain 2y ago
>Since the core foundation of their product is open and available to every other competing browser they could implement better privacy protections while still leveraging all of the other benefits of Chrome. With what funding? Chrome loses money. Edge loses money. Safari loses money. Firefox loses Google's money. Brave loses VC money. Without some endless source of money, funding you for an ulterior motive, you can't compete with them. Which is why: >For all the downsides that Chrome has I don't see anything that fits the term better for my use case. The anti-competitive practices ensure there can't be effective competition.

consumer451 2y ago

Isn't it even worse than that? Didn't they make changes via Manifest v3, which will not allow me to follow the FBI's advisory about using ad blockers, to make sure their ad revenue does not decline? I do realize you can still use uBlock, but my understanding is that updates will be slow rolled, correct? Doesn't this open the window to malicious people to serve me mal-ads?

hinkley 2y ago
M3 seems to be failing, but I agree that it matters that the tried.
ycombinatrix 2y ago
>I do realize you can still use uBlock No, you can't. You can use "uBlock origin lite" which is the manifest v3 version that doesn't work correctly.

teractiveodular 2y ago

Quite the opposite, Google is the key sponsor of Privacy Sandbox: https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/ https://privacysandbox.com/intl/en_us/ Working out why they're doing this is left as an exercise to the reader.

kivle 2y ago
The whole reason for "privacy sandbox" is to still do user tracking, but do it in an anonymous way that they hope legislators won't go after. It's Google seeing the writing on the wall that legislation will soon ban third-party cookie tracking and fingerprinting and the like, so they need to be proactive and protect the ad tracking business. A better name for it would have been something like "anonymous user tracking / data collection", but "privacy sandbox" is probably a good marketing term to fuzz what it's really doing. To a normal user it makes it sounds like Google is doing something good and protecting them, while it's really just "please opt in to our new more anonymized tracking technology while still allowing us to track you".
- teractiveodular 2y ago
  The entire point of Privacy Sandbox is to get away from tracking individuals and allow ad targeting of anonymous cohorts (interest groups) instead. https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/private-advertising/protected-audience https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/private-advert...
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    The root problem here is that users don't want any of these tracking alternatives. All of the other browsers have said "no thanks" to any of the alternatives, and already moved forward with blocking third-party cookies (the main vector for tracking). Chrome hasn't moved forward with this because their ability to still track you thanks you being logged into Google means that disadvantaging every ad provider paints a massive target on their backs for antitrust law (even more so than they already have). Hence their attempt to fix it by creating new vectors of tracking so they can get the privacy "win" of blocking third-party cookies.

wbl 2y ago

Everyone else's ad revenue. The UK computing regulator is the main player here.

jsnell 2y ago

No. They're not doing those changes because regulators like the DOJ[0] threatened them with anti-trust action if they did. That's the same DOJ that's now asking for Chrome to be divested. [0] https://www.engadget.com/google-antitrust-doj-cookies-privacy-sandbox-152453575.html?guccounter=1 https://www.engadget.com/google-antitrust-doj-cookies-privac...

hinkley 2y ago
Uh. That was not my understanding of that situation. Blocking third party cookies this way still leaves Google’s tools which people voluntarily install with access to data that now nobody else has access to.