3 ms·
If the argument is removing third party cookies is detrimental to Google’s competitors then isn’t it just as detrimental after Chrome has been split up? Google
by pests 1y ago
If the argument is removing third party cookies is detrimental to Google’s competitors then isn’t it just as detrimental after Chrome has been split up?
Google is saying they’re fine with no third party cookies. The rest of the industry needs them.
How do you protect user privacy while also not killing googles competitors? Which need is more important?
- bfdm 1y agoIf chrome were split out (and subsequently stopped giving Google direct access to user data), Google would need them too. It would impact all ad players equally.
- creato 1y agoI don't think Google uses data from Chrome this way. I don't think Google actually wants to associate data with people so aggressively. It's obvious when that happens and it feels gross (this is why I stopped using Facebook 10+ years ago, I've never had an equivalent gross-out moment with Google). I'm guessing the reason google doesn't use third party cookies is because they get higher quality data from people being signed in to Google services, and that is independent of whether they are using Chrome or not.
- pests 1y agoYea correct. They have numerous other ways of identifying you or fingerprinting you that cookies aren't all that important anymore.
- modeless 1y agoNo, the antitrust argument is Google doesn't need third party tracking because they have a huge amount of first party data and ad inventory from search and YouTube and all their other web products. It's not from Chrome. Their adtech competitors don't have first party inventory or data and would be crushed.
- immibis 1y agoKilling Google's competitors would be a good thing but only if Google was also killed at the same time. The differential is the problem.