3 ms·

Much better privacy protection and ad blocking. There's really no rational reason for third-party cookies to still exist. The only reason they're still around

Much better privacy protection and ad blocking. There's really no rational reason for third-party cookies to still exist. The only reason they're still around is because an advertising company's browser has like 97% market share.

Arainach 2y ago
The same cookies that Google tried to eliminate but couldn't get traction from anyone else?
- dmix 2y ago
  Which in itself shows 3rd party Cookies will only marginally make the internet more privacy friendly. That would have been nice in 2014 but in 2024 the big ad industry is ready. The only ones who will hurt the most are the ones without tie ins to authentication systems like Google auth or FB auth or apple ID etc. Although I'm sure theres plenty of mega databases which don't need overt auths to ID a user. And contextual ads work just fine.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  Google tried to replace 3rd party cookies with new tracking. Other browsers blocked or isolated 3rd party cookies without new tracking.
graeme 2y ago
>Much better privacy protection and ad blocking. The order doesn't mandate that. It mandates google SELL the data it has collected on people to third parties. There are also privacy focussed, ad blocking focussed alternatives trivially available on the market....and people are not choosing them. Any company which buys Chrome (Microsoft?) will have just as strong an incentive as Google to track people and run ads. FWIW, Chrome has a 66% market share: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share ====== Disliking a company doesn't justify any arbitrary policy against that company
- N19PEDL2 2y ago
  > Microsoft? It already owns Edge. I would rather bet on Meta or Amazon.
  - mupuff1234 2y ago
    I'm gonna place a wild bet on Musk. There's no way Meta or Amazon will (/should) be allowed to buy chrome.
  - MikeHolman 2y ago
    I think Meta would make the most sense. Funnel people to facebook, instagram, etc. Get all that juicy tracking data and boost additional ad revenue. Doesn't really seem like much of a win for consumers though... it's just trading one personal data hungry megacorp for another.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      I might make some sense. However, not everyone uses Facebook or Instagram; it's not quite like Google where just about everyone uses some of their services, if not many. I suppose it would help Meta greatly expand their ad business, to places far beyond FB/IG.

Arainach 2y ago

The same cookies that Google tried to eliminate but couldn't get traction from anyone else?

dmix 2y ago
Which in itself shows 3rd party Cookies will only marginally make the internet more privacy friendly. That would have been nice in 2014 but in 2024 the big ad industry is ready. The only ones who will hurt the most are the ones without tie ins to authentication systems like Google auth or FB auth or apple ID etc. Although I'm sure theres plenty of mega databases which don't need overt auths to ID a user. And contextual ads work just fine.
pseudalopex 2y ago
Google tried to replace 3rd party cookies with new tracking. Other browsers blocked or isolated 3rd party cookies without new tracking.

graeme 2y ago

>Much better privacy protection and ad blocking. The order doesn't mandate that. It mandates google SELL the data it has collected on people to third parties. There are also privacy focussed, ad blocking focussed alternatives trivially available on the market....and people are not choosing them. Any company which buys Chrome (Microsoft?) will have just as strong an incentive as Google to track people and run ads. FWIW, Chrome has a 66% market share: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share ====== Disliking a company doesn't justify any arbitrary policy against that company

N19PEDL2 2y ago
> Microsoft? It already owns Edge. I would rather bet on Meta or Amazon.
- mupuff1234 2y ago
  I'm gonna place a wild bet on Musk. There's no way Meta or Amazon will (/should) be allowed to buy chrome.
- MikeHolman 2y ago
  I think Meta would make the most sense. Funnel people to facebook, instagram, etc. Get all that juicy tracking data and boost additional ad revenue. Doesn't really seem like much of a win for consumers though... it's just trading one personal data hungry megacorp for another.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    I might make some sense. However, not everyone uses Facebook or Instagram; it's not quite like Google where just about everyone uses some of their services, if not many. I suppose it would help Meta greatly expand their ad business, to places far beyond FB/IG.