5 ms·

The deprecation of third-party cookies, that all browsers were at one point on track to implement, was pretty much the most realistic first step to that. Which

The deprecation of third-party cookies, that all browsers were at one point on track to implement, was pretty much the most realistic first step to that. Which is why Google killed it last year by leveraging their control over Chrome. While not technically a crime, it was a disgusting, unethical market manipulation move that never really got the public outrage it deserved. Google execs’ initial support for it was also telling: leadership at Google must literally thought they would find another way to stay as profitable as they are without third-party cookies. Put another way: Google leadership didn’t understand cookies as well as someone who’s taken a single undergrad web dev class. (Or they were lying all along, and always planned to “renege” on third-party cookie deprecation.)

footlose_3815 1y ago
Insidiously calling it "Privacy sandbox", and now setting everything opt-in every time I login to Chrome is really not Googly.
IggleSniggle 1y ago
I don't think that's quite what happened. Google got in anti-trust trouble because they have an unfair advantage in user-tracking, given logged in Chrome accounts. Removing third-party cookies hurts other privacy-invading companies without substantially affecting Google. It was still somewhat on track to be removed from Chrome until they lost their antitrust battle, and Chrome was required to be spun off. With Chrome's new future, and Google's new legal constraints, there's less incentive to try and make Privacy Sandbox work. At least, that was my understanding; I didn't follow it all that closely.
skybrian 1y ago
Most commenters on Hacker News hated Google’s plan and hoped it would fail. Were they wrong? It seems like damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t.
- threecheese 1y ago
  That stemmed from “dammit Google now every SaaS developer has to work nights to meet your arbitrary deadline”; here we’re caring more about the impact as consumers. It’s ok to think about things in two ways. source: a developer who actually did have to do this (and did it, and now didn’t have to, but it’s done)
  - guiambros 1y ago
    Didn't have to? Don't you need to support users on Firefox and Safari?
SquareWheel 1y ago
This is very misleading. Google was prevented from disabling third-party cookies due to intervention by the CMA, who felt it would provide an unfair advantage over other advertisers. Google argued their case for years, proposed competing standards to act as a replacement (see Topics API), and eventually gave up on the endeavour altogether and simply made it a user toggle.
- turtletontine 1y ago
  Google gets no competitive advantage from removing third party cookies from chrome. The anticompetitive monopolistic tactic was the plan to replace third party cookies with FLoC/Privacy Sandbox/Topics AI, and THAT is what they were not prevented from doing. No one is trying to stop google from removing third party cookies. Google is just unwilling to remove them without introducing a new anticompetitive tracking tool to replace them.
  - SquareWheel 1y ago
    > No one is trying to stop google from removing third party cookies. That's simply not true. As I already mentioned, the CMA presented a legal challenge which you can read about online. Please review the history, as it's been going on for years now. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-have-key-oversight-role-over-google-s-planned-removal-of-third-party-cookies https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-have-key-oversight... https://www.marketing-beat.co.uk/2024/02/06/cma-cookies-google-sandbox/ https://www.marketing-beat.co.uk/2024/02/06/cma-cookies-goog...
    - turtletontine 1y ago
      The first link confirms exactly what I said above. They’re not preventing Google from removing third party cookies, they’re preventing Google from implementing ALTERNATIVES to third party cookies. The only reason Google is unwilling to straight up remove third party cookies is their business model. The CMA was concerned that, without regulatory oversight and scrutiny, Google’s alternatives could be developed and implemented in ways that impede competition in digital advertising markets. This would cause advertising spending to become even more concentrated on Google, harming consumers who ultimately pay for the cost of advertising. It would also undermine the ability of online publishers such as newspapers to generate revenue and continue to produce valuable content in the future. The second link does contain the phrase “cannot proceed with third-party cookie deprecation”, but it’s simply obvious that it’s not about third party cookies per se. It’s all about Google’s (unnecessary, anticompetitive, anti-user, anti-privacy) replacements for third party cookies. … report on the implementation of Google’s Privacy Sandbox commitments, the regulator has said that although the tech giant is so far complying with its demands, there remain considerable areas of concerns … … That it must not “design, develop or use the Privacy Sandbox proposals in ways that reinforce the existing market position of its advertising products and services, including Google Ad Manager“ … It must also address issues with specific Sandbox tools such as how its Topics API targeting alternative can harm smaller tech business, and clarify who will govern the Topics API taxonomy.

footlose_3815 1y ago

Insidiously calling it "Privacy sandbox", and now setting everything opt-in every time I login to Chrome is really not Googly.

IggleSniggle 1y ago

I don't think that's quite what happened. Google got in anti-trust trouble because they have an unfair advantage in user-tracking, given logged in Chrome accounts. Removing third-party cookies hurts other privacy-invading companies without substantially affecting Google. It was still somewhat on track to be removed from Chrome until they lost their antitrust battle, and Chrome was required to be spun off. With Chrome's new future, and Google's new legal constraints, there's less incentive to try and make Privacy Sandbox work. At least, that was my understanding; I didn't follow it all that closely.

skybrian 1y ago

Most commenters on Hacker News hated Google’s plan and hoped it would fail. Were they wrong? It seems like damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t.

threecheese 1y ago
That stemmed from “dammit Google now every SaaS developer has to work nights to meet your arbitrary deadline”; here we’re caring more about the impact as consumers. It’s ok to think about things in two ways. source: a developer who actually did have to do this (and did it, and now didn’t have to, but it’s done)
- guiambros 1y ago
  Didn't have to? Don't you need to support users on Firefox and Safari?

SquareWheel 1y ago

This is very misleading. Google was prevented from disabling third-party cookies due to intervention by the CMA, who felt it would provide an unfair advantage over other advertisers. Google argued their case for years, proposed competing standards to act as a replacement (see Topics API), and eventually gave up on the endeavour altogether and simply made it a user toggle.

turtletontine 1y ago
Google gets no competitive advantage from removing third party cookies from chrome. The anticompetitive monopolistic tactic was the plan to replace third party cookies with FLoC/Privacy Sandbox/Topics AI, and THAT is what they were not prevented from doing. No one is trying to stop google from removing third party cookies. Google is just unwilling to remove them without introducing a new anticompetitive tracking tool to replace them.
- SquareWheel 1y ago
  > No one is trying to stop google from removing third party cookies. That's simply not true. As I already mentioned, the CMA presented a legal challenge which you can read about online. Please review the history, as it's been going on for years now. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-have-key-oversight-role-over-google-s-planned-removal-of-third-party-cookies https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-have-key-oversight... https://www.marketing-beat.co.uk/2024/02/06/cma-cookies-google-sandbox/ https://www.marketing-beat.co.uk/2024/02/06/cma-cookies-goog...
  - turtletontine 1y ago
    The first link confirms exactly what I said above. They’re not preventing Google from removing third party cookies, they’re preventing Google from implementing ALTERNATIVES to third party cookies. The only reason Google is unwilling to straight up remove third party cookies is their business model. The CMA was concerned that, without regulatory oversight and scrutiny, Google’s alternatives could be developed and implemented in ways that impede competition in digital advertising markets. This would cause advertising spending to become even more concentrated on Google, harming consumers who ultimately pay for the cost of advertising. It would also undermine the ability of online publishers such as newspapers to generate revenue and continue to produce valuable content in the future. The second link does contain the phrase “cannot proceed with third-party cookie deprecation”, but it’s simply obvious that it’s not about third party cookies per se. It’s all about Google’s (unnecessary, anticompetitive, anti-user, anti-privacy) replacements for third party cookies. … report on the implementation of Google’s Privacy Sandbox commitments, the regulator has said that although the tech giant is so far complying with its demands, there remain considerable areas of concerns … … That it must not “design, develop or use the Privacy Sandbox proposals in ways that reinforce the existing market position of its advertising products and services, including Google Ad Manager“ … It must also address issues with specific Sandbox tools such as how its Topics API targeting alternative can harm smaller tech business, and clarify who will govern the Topics API taxonomy.