My 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.
your
Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
11–20 of 354 posts
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#12So 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.
This seems like it overlooks the obvious possibility of things that don't fall into any of those three categories...
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This seems like it overlooks the obvious possibility of things that don't fall into any of those three categories...
Sure, it's just a silly quip, I'm not saying it's watertight.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#14So 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.
How would chrome survive as a business?
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#15Aside from the parties and parades that would be thrown over the removal of third-party cookies (were we not in a no-parties-allowed situation in 2021), it does seem a little troubling that they appear to be repeating the AMP strategy here 1:1, with an "open initiative" to replace cookies with something that is clearly owned and operated by Google for their interests with industry participation instead of an actual collaborative effort.
On the other hand, who would they collaborate with? Mozilla is busy selling VPNs or something and Apple wants nothing to do with Google's ad practices. Unpleasant all around.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How would chrome survive as a business?
How did Mozilla survive as a business? Why is Brave around?
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How would chrome survive as a business?
How would Linux kernel development survive as a business?
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How would chrome survive as a business?
By auctioning the default search engine slot.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#19Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Don't be snarky. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html