3 ms·

One benefits directly while the other doesn't. Plus many people complained.

• briandear 2y ago
  The advertising industry was who filed the complaint, it wasn’t a bunch of normal users. If the ad industry wasn’t so shitty, I might give them the benefit of the doubt.
• gruez 2y ago
  >One benefits directly while the other doesn't. That's the exact of cynicism I'm talking about. It doesn't matter whether banning third party was good for users or not, only whether Google (or Mozilla) stood to benefit. This is absolutely toxic because it means objectively good changes get shouted down. > Plus many people complained. For what, Firefox?
  • ATMLOTTOBEER 2y ago
    Chrome never actually did away with third party cookies
  • johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >It doesn't matter whether banning third party was good for users or not, only whether Google (or Mozilla) stood to benefit. Well, yes. These are billion dollar companies. Always follow the money. The incentives change everything. >This is absolutely toxic because it means objectively good changes get shouted down. Probably because "objectively good" changes often follow before even more harmful decisions. Many have long lost their benefit of the double for these Big Tech trillionaifes. And the reputation is deserved.