Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
1–10 of 354 posts
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#2So if I understand this correctly, then killing off 3rd party cookies is anti-competitive, leaving them in is anti-privacy, and putting out a privacy-enhancing alternative is also anti-competitive. Is there anything that can be done that would satisfy all regulations?
Also, this reminds me of a story I heard years ago, that a California oil change location needed to store oil above ground due to EPA regulations, but needed it stored underground to satisfy the fire department regulations. So they were constantly getting fined from one or the other, and had to just include those fines as a cost of doing business.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#3Well, Google is first and foremost an ad-company, and obviously any method that improves profiling for selling ads is the way to go.
Anything else would probably not please shareholders and investors.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#4My heart goes out to all the other adtech companies, may you all go fuck yourselves and find you’re future endeavours in more ethical industries fulfilling.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#5So if I understand this correctly, then killing off 3rd party cookies is anti-competitive, leaving them in is anti-privacy, and putting out a privacy-enhancing alternative is also anti-competitive. Is there anything that can be done that would satisfy all regulations? Also, this reminds me of a story I heard years ago, that a California oil change location needed to store oil above ground due to EPA regulations, but…
[deleted]
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#6So if I understand this correctly, then killing off 3rd party cookies is anti-competitive, leaving them in is anti-privacy, and putting out a privacy-enhancing alternative is also anti-competitive. Is there anything that can be done that would satisfy all regulations? Also, this reminds me of a story I heard years ago, that a California oil change location needed to store oil above ground due to EPA regulations, but…
Perhaps it's time to recognize that the company simply need not exist in it's present form. If Google was required to spin off Chrome as an independent company, there would be no antitrust issue, and privacy protections Chrome made would not also include anti-privacy features designed to feed Google's ad business.
The reality is, Google needs to be broken up. Every fine they get makes that clear.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#7My heart goes out to all the other adtech companies, may you all go fuck yourselves and find you’re future endeavours in more ethical industries fulfilling.
Things will definitely be better when Google has all the lobbyists, no competitors, and even more information about you.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#8So if I understand this correctly, then killing off 3rd party cookies is anti-competitive, leaving them in is anti-privacy, and putting out a privacy-enhancing alternative is also anti-competitive. Is there anything that can be done that would satisfy all regulations? Also, this reminds me of a story I heard years ago, that a California oil change location needed to store oil above ground due to EPA regulations, but…
It's a good analogy - like oil, companies industry-wide should reduce their dependence on data, and companies that still deal in it should be prepared to deal with heightened legal scrutiny and additional restrictions.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#9My heart goes out to all the other adtech companies, may you all go fuck yourselves and find you’re future endeavours in more ethical industries fulfilling.
Things will definitely be better when Google has all the lobbyists, no competitors, and even more information about you.
I don't get why this is being voted down, it's the first thing I thought too. Basically winning a battle to lose the war
EDIT: anyone care to provide some rationale? Silently button-mashing downvote without even contributing isn't really helpful here
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#10So if I understand this correctly, then killing off 3rd party cookies is anti-competitive, leaving them in is anti-privacy, and putting out a privacy-enhancing alternative is also anti-competitive. Is there anything that can be done that would satisfy all regulations? Also, this reminds me of a story I heard years ago, that a California oil change location needed to store oil above ground due to EPA regulations, but…
I'm reminded of a snarky libertarian quip:
> If a big company charges more than the competition, they say they're illegally abusing their monopoly.
> If a big company charges the same as the competition, they say it's illegal collusion.
> If a big company charges less than the competition, they say it's illegal price-dumping.