Key actionable info: to fix this, go to this URL:<p><pre><code> chrome://settings/adPrivacy
</code></pre>
and turn off the toggles on each of the three subpages.<p>Alternatively, go to this URL <a href="https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/</a> to fix this permanently.
Our research group does work in this space[1], so I’ll claim some familiarity.<p>This article has multiple problems:<p>1. Privacy Sandbox is a project, consisting of many proposals. To pitch it as some cohesive product is misleading.<p>2. Related: FLoC and Topics are completely separate things, aside from existing under the same project.<p>3. Topics is reducible to (implementable using) third-party cookies. While the proposal has issues and doesn’t resist tracking as well as Google claims (see below article), Ars’ implication that this is somehow making Chrome less privacy-preserving is patently false.<p>[1] <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03825" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.03825</a>
I'm kind of torn on this. The general idea that the user's browser tracks him by itself instead of utilizing cookies or fingerprinting seems like a step up for privacy. Obviously the devil is in the details - Google controls that whole algorithm, and there obviously is a conflict of interest.<p>But the alternative that the people who are against it are proposing is either to keep the status quo or kindly ask Google (and other ad companies) to stop existing, which is not gonna happen. They seem to ignore the fact that ad-tech is a huge industry and a large part of the internet relies on it. Basically the only way to make it go away would be to outlaw it.<p>(Also so nobody accuses me as being pro-ads: I hate ads and tracking, but sort of in a way like I hate being sick. I can reduce my exposure to ads and tracking (adblock, not using certain apps, etc.), but I know that complaining about it won't make it go away)
I heard about this the other day and didn’t think much of it.<p>I got the actual update today on my work laptop and… just wow. How did the folks at Google ship this with a straight face? The changeboarding modal basically lies to your face.<p>I’ve always felt a little weird about Google’s tracking, but this takes it to another level. Creepy as heck.
All this focus on cookies and FLoC feels like smoke and mirrors from Google.<p>Modern adtech can track users regardless if cookies are enabled or not, and whether they enable this new Chrome feature or not, via browser fingerprinting. They've been doing this for years.<p>So this new "privacy sandbox" is a diversion to the public, and particularly to law makers, that signals "see, we care about user privacy". When in fact it ultimately makes no impact on their revenue.<p>The public and law makers are barely starting to get an understanding about cookies, and there's a growing concern about them, so this is Google being proactive towards the blowback. Fingerprinting is much more complex to understand, and concern about it is so under the radar, that it will take many more years for the focus to catch up to these nefarious practices.<p>The frog is being boiled[1], make no mistake about that.<p>[1]: <a href="https://gazoche.xyz/posts/boiling-frog/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://gazoche.xyz/posts/boiling-frog/</a>
> Chrome's invasive new ad platform, ridiculously branded the "Privacy Sandbox,"<p>Ars seems to be confusing the topics API with the privacy sandbox as a whole. Most features are early, like client hints, while others like privacy budget haven't even been released yet.<p><a href="https://privacysandbox.com/open-web/#proposals-for-the-web" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://privacysandbox.com/open-web/#proposals-for-the-web</a>
Looking at 'Ad topics' in Chrome settings, they seem extremely generic and barely count as targeting. If disclosing these topics to a bunch of websites harms me, I don't see how? I don't care who knows them.<p>Here you go:<p><pre><code> * Arts & Entertainment
* Computers & Electronics
* Internet & telecom
* News
* Online communities
</code></pre>
Seems reasonably accurate, but so what? What am I missing?
So, here's the question:<p>When a large, publicly traded ad-company (that relies on collecting data and tracking users for most of it's income), creates a product that costs them quite a lot of money to make, and then gives that product to you for free...<p>Do you expect them:<p>A.) to be taking a loss on that product because they really just want to gift it to you from the goodness of their heart with no ulterior motives?<p>B.) to actually have another way to make money from that product, which makes the whole endeavor financially worthwhile to them?
“I want real Chrome on iOS. Safari sucks! It’s the new IE 6! Chrome is moving the web forward!”<p>Yeah. Things are going great in Chrome world. Totally should give them dominance over the one sliver they don’t control.<p>(I have no problem with letting people have FF/etc. but let’s face it, it will be 90%+ Chrome within days)
Honestly I never quite understood why most folks switched so easily and unquestioningly to Chrome.<p>Maybe I'm just an open source purist. However, I will say that in almost all tests with websites I am actually using Firefox is faster.<p>(Maybe not that much of a purist: I do use Chrome at work as we're using various Google products... docs, meet, etc, and those work better on Chrome. Go figure.)
I use Chrome in development on a Windows box. Here is my experience with this upgrade:<p><pre><code> 1. Upgraded manually from 116.0.5845.179 to 116.0.5845.180 through About dialog.
2. Restart. No notification that anything has changed.
3. Go to settings, privacy and security, privacy guide, and on the 4th page (only 3 pips!)
Or go to settings, privacy and security, Ad privacy (the new element)
4. The privacy guide blurb: Privacy Sandbox trial
Chrome is exploring new features that allow sites
to deliver the same browsing experience using less of your data
Under Ad privacy:
5. Ad topics: Site-suggested ads.
Based on your activity on a site. This setting is on.
6. Site-suggested ads.
Based on your activity on a site. This setting is on.
7. Ad measurement.
Sites and advertisers can understand how ads perform.
This setting is on.
</code></pre>
This roll out is filled with dark patterns. At (2) there is no notification that anything has changed. If not for this article, I would not have known about this at all. At (3) the feature seems intentionally hidden. At (4) the description of these features misleads the user that the purpose is to "use less of their data". This is false, or at least badly misleading. At (5,6,7) they've defaulted all new "features" to "on".<p>This is all so shady, and very un-Google like. I have such high regard for the Chrome team: was there push back on this? Do they realize what a bad look this is?
It's nefarious how they ask you if you want to turn on "ad privacy", indicating that this feature increases your privacy when in reality it does the opposite.
I think the Ars writer here is very uninformed. Floc is completely different from Topics, and if you actually read the Topics spec, it seems to be significantly better than 3rd party cookies? At least to me. Maybe I’m missing something.
My friend Jake runs an analytics company.<p>He's faced enormous challenges due to Google's "privacy" policies... Google is removing nearly all access to user data, they don't even like you looking at the user agent string (which issues a warning)... not to mention its impossible to know about search traffic and even referring urls.<p>Meanwhile Google has access to all this data, so he tells me all this is just gaslighting so they can illicitly protect their monopoly on web data.
>this feature will track the web pages you visit and generate a list of advertising topics that it will share with web pages whenever they ask<p>This is factually incorrect. It works like third party cookies, but with privacy. A web page can only retrieve a topic if that site has already observe you visit pages of that topic. In order for you to observe a site that site must send a fetch request to you or embed you in an iframe.<p>If a random site calls document.browsingTopics() they get no topics as not enough data has been observed by them.
My friend who was the biggest Google evangelist 10yrs ago who went through a round of interviews there (stellar Kotlin programmer) has completely written off the company after this announcement some months ago.<p>He's committed to deGoogling his life now and is even migrating off Gmail this weekend - I think I'll be joining him.
The silver lining is maybe we can return to the days of browser wars. Chrome came out of nowhere to win this and it seemed to dial down in prominance.<p>Would be great to see more attention being brought to the independent browsers: Firefox, Opera, Brave, Vivaldi etc<p>Not sure if we are there yet, but seems we are heading that direction.
I use Firefox almost exclusively, and have done for years. But there are sites that only work with Chrome. So far I've always either:<p>(a) Ignored them, or<p>(b) Used an incognito window.<p>But now, when I'm forced to use Chrome, I'm seriously looking at disguising my IP address, etc. But this is not my field.<p>Would a VPN do what I need? Where are instructions that a n00b can follow?<p>Every site I've found so far has either been:<p>(i) Advertising;<p>(ii) Assuming too much competence;<p>(iii) Out of date, or<p>(iv) Wrong.<p>Clear, robust, and up-to-date advice welcome, as I'm sure it would be for many.
Vivaldi's team made a statement on the matter:<p><a href="https://vivaldi.com/blog/news/alert-no-google-topics-in-vivaldi/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://vivaldi.com/blog/news/alert-no-google-topics-in-viva...</a><p>Shortly: they disable the tracking forcibly, even if "someone" tries to enable it remotely or via flags.
I’ve been waiting for years for Safari to support multiple profiles so I can have a work and personal profile, instead of using Chrome for work. Finally this year we’re getting that, goodbye chrome, it’s been a fun 10 years. Unfortunately Chrome turned into a bloated mess over time, even before this news I was waiting to switch.
Glad this is getting press!<p>Google was playing 3D chess when they started developing Chrome, and when they started making moves to strip away things like user agent strings, they were really just making the final moves of a campaign set years before to create a walled garden of ads data.
As much as I hate what Google has done with Chrome and I choose not to use it, the comparisons to the IE6-8 dominance are even more acute when you consider that Chrome is also successful in the enterprise due to its support for both typical group policy/Mobile Device Management configuration as well as its integration into Google Workspace.<p>Edit: I had initially said “dominant” in the enterprise, but I imagine that title still goes to Edge?<p>It would be impressive if it wasn’t so depressing and gross.
Congratulations to everybody who's been working overtime to simp for Chrome for so long.<p>Firefox has had its ups and downs, but it and its progenitors have been great daily drivers for me over 20 years now. It's not too late. The best time to switch was, well, <i>forever</i> ago -- but today is also a great time to switch. Get on the fucking bus.
"Part III. Put Users First; the Rest Will Follow<p>Like most companies, Google has a mission statement or "philosophy." Google's philosophy is divided into 10 points; each point is one sentence long. The first and most interesting is quoted in the title of this part of the book. Unlike most corporate mission statements, this phrase did not come about through long committee discussions: This statement is Larry Page's mantra. Early on, when people asked him about financing his projects, he always replied with something like, "Don't worry about it. If our users are satisfied, if we give them all they want and more, we'll be able to find some money.""<p><a href="https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/the-google-way/9781593271848/pt03.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/the-google-way/97815932...</a>
Wonder if there is a "Gentoo for browsers," where you specify certain parts of the stack: layout engine, HTTP engine (cURL), JS engine (V8, none) and conveniences (password management, bookmarks), and the script builds it for you.<p>The conceit is the ability to view responses as nodes in a graph, and laying filters on top. The tradeoff for performance being introspection and control.
I stopped using Chrome and uninstalled it from all my devices a year ago. It was hard at first, but you get used to other browsers pretty quickly (took me two weeks).
Safari on macOS works like a champ, and if I'm doing web development I switch to Firefox which has excellent developer tools (remember firebug?)
I'm wondering about the "now".<p>Didn't the very initial release of Chrome, many years ago, already create a unique, identifiable ID per user, and open a connection to phone home to Google servers (using that unique ID) on every single key-press and mouse click done anywhere in the browser?
I just want to say that I’m glad Apple does the exact opposite with Safari of what hostile things Google, Microsoft, and sometimes even Mozilla do to their browsers. Call me an Apple fanboy all day long but they proved for years that they care about speed, privacy, and even simplicity.
I found about <a href="https://librewolf.net/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://librewolf.net/</a> from a web search. Has anyone here tried it or can recommend any other alternative firefox build without telemetry?
lol just updated my chrome before I saw this, I instantly got what it's about and didn't allow, why would I want any ads at all, I have a blocker, it doesn't matter, but that's sneaky from them and unhumane to push for that.
Why do people still use Chrome? I can kind of understand Google search, Gmail and Maps(though search kind of sucks nowadays), but chrome is turning into one of the most user hostile pieces of software.
I like the Brave browser, but it is based on Chromium -- how badly is it affected?<p>Should I just restrict myself to Safari now? I don't really like Firefox for some reason.
Just… just stop using google.<p>Stop.<p>Stop excusing it. “It’s work. It’s my hobby. I like it. But I can make it work.”<p>Just stop. It’s only hard because you think you’re in this world technology that’s more important than you as a human.<p>Uninstall chrome.
Tell others to do it.
Tell others why.
Tell others the lies, deceit, marginalization, and corruption.
And then don’t participate.
Hey guys, please stop giving market share to Chrome. Firefox is not only an objectively better browser but you're supporting an open web instead of a terrifying data behemoth.