So when a major regulatory authority forbids Chrome from proceeding with the third party cookie deprecation plan, what should Google do? Apparently the vast majority of HN commenters think that they should ignore the regulators, and just plow ahead.<p>For some reason I imagine that if they actually were to ignore the regulators, the feedback from exactly the same commenters would not be positive.
Not defending cookies - but I just don't think most of the rest of the world <i>cares</i>. Outside of the tech bubble that <i>really</i> cares, I'm not sure I know a single non-tech person that, other than 'the popup', even knows what a cookie is (let alone gives a damn). 99% of my non-tech friends/relatives are just bored of 'the box thing that comes up every time you visit a website'. No one it them and everyone just clicks the quickest button ('Accept All') to just get on with whatever they were trying to look at.
Eh, we'll see if they can actually hold to that position.<p>Every time Google delays on a change like this, it becomes a bit more obvious that both Firefox and Safari are more private browsers by default out of the box. Add to this that Firefox already has better uBlock Origin performance than Chrome. Add to this that whenever Manifest V2 is finally deprecated from Chrome their adblocking will get considerably worse.<p>Firefox and Safari also aren't going to stand still on privacy. I expect them to continue to widen the gap over time if Google keeps delaying on this stuff; regardless of whether they're delaying because of fear of regulators or just because they don't like the idea of a web ecosystem that is less ad-friendly.<p>----<p>It is a little bit ironic to hear sentences like this coming from the Chrome PR team though:<p>> In order to do this, we need to move at a responsible pace. This will allow sufficient time for public discussion on the right solutions, continued engagement with regulators, and for publishers and the advertising industry to migrate their services.<p>It's funny, given that a primary complaint of Chrome from web developers has been that they constantly move at a breakneck pace with new standards and regularly push out new policies without sufficient developer discussion or thought about the possible issues their changes will introduce. See the entire web audio debacle.<p>It's almost like Google is a lot more scared of breaking ads than they are of breaking other parts of the web. :)
You can opt into blocking third party cookies now.<p>> Select Settings > Site Settings > Cookies and site data.<p>> Select Block third-party cookies.
We've seen this over and over in tech. The spotlight is focused on it, so they hide away and bring it back at a later date, likely with a rebranding and hope no one notices or causes a scene.
Sounds like a great reason for everyone to stop using Chrome. This is a capability that's been in Firefox and Safari for awhile now.<p>We're getting back to a point where the dominant browser is focused on rent-extraction over user-focused design and features, and alternatives are superior in pretty much every way other than bug-compat with the dominant browser (e.g. same thing we had in the IE6 days).<p>There's no reason anyone who's technically inclined should be using Chrome as a daily-driver at this point. Their interference in ad-blocker extensions should have been enough, this should be the nail in the coffin.
> We believe the web community needs to come together to develop a set of open standards to fundamentally enhance privacy on the web, giving people more transparency and greater control over how their data is used.<p>> In order to do this, we need to move at a responsible pace. This will allow sufficient time for public discussion on the right solutions, continued engagement with regulators, and for publishers and the advertising industry to migrate their services.<p>> By ensuring that the ecosystem can support their businesses without tracking individuals across the web, we can all ensure that free access to content continues.<p>This proves Google's consumer privacy strategy is all smoke and show. It should come to no ones surprise they choose to follow the money (ads). Apple continues to improve privacy on Safari with every major update and Google is still sitting on the sidelines.<p><a href="https://blog.google/products/chrome/updated-timeline-privacy-sandbox-milestones/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.google/products/chrome/updated-timeline-privacy...</a>
We know:
* FLoC is less useful than third-party cookies for tracking visitors.
* Google won't stop supporting third-party cookies until a replacement (like FloC) is available<p>Yet, in these threads I see both statements:
* Google is pushing FLoC to help its ad business.
* Google won't kill 3rd-party cookies because it would hurt their ad business.
So for two more years, Chrome will be the only major web browser to provide no reasonable expectation of privacy and security.<p>Nobody should still be using it by 2023.
In today's news, we have Google refusing to do something that would damage their ad business, and we have Apple refusing to do something that would damage their app store business.
Many (I suspect a large majority) of users simply don't care about web browser privacy. And I don't mean lack of concern due to ignorance of the scope of the issue. I mean if you describe to them what a third party cookie does, they just don't see a material harm, or risk, or disadvantage.<p>They may prefer not to see ads at all (who wouldn't?), but in terms of surveillance marketing, it's just not something that is perceived as adversely impacting their day-to-day experience.