Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

digiday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 354 posts

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#21

Post by patwolfe »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #6
derekp7 wrote: post #2

So 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.

Yup, when there is nothing a company can do in a situation to avoid anti-trust regulation, that is a pretty good indication anti-trust regulation should have already happened.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#22

Post by izacus »

kevingadd wrote: post #16
albertgoeswoof wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would chrome survive as a business?

How did Mozilla survive as a business? Why is Brave around?

Mozilla is financed directly by Google. Brave is injecting their own ads into websites.

Not really the best examples.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#23

Post by [deleted] »

derekp7 wrote: post #2

So 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

#24

Post by dang »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #4

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.

Please don't post like this to HN. It's against the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

You may not owe adtech companies better, but you owe this community better if you're participating here. We're hoping for curious conversation, not internet fulmination.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#26

Post by seaman1921 »

It is so annoying to see that HN and general media have collectively decided that Google and everything it does is evil, but honestly you have no idea how good you have it right now. Google is not abusing your user data like you are made to think.

If you talk to a Google engineer, you would realise the countlesss number of measures they take to safeguard user's data - human access is next to impossible. Only machines roles are allowed to request for decryption keys and each access is logged and audited. And even the data a machine gets to see is annonymized and only aggregated analysis is usually allowed which is also required to be approved by dedicated Legal and Security teams.

Having worked at a start-up I know how much these smaller companies care about privacy - trust me you are way better with your data lying in Google servers than one of these random small companies claiming to 'protect your privacy'. I would rather trust the brilliant minds at Google to safeguard my data any day.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#27

Post by ocdtrekkie »

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #14
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #6

Earlier 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?

As the window 70% of people access the Internet through globally, Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. Arguably, being part of Google hurts it, because it has to fit into Google's ideal business strategy.

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#28

Post by slumpt_ »

kevingadd wrote: post #15

Aside 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 c…

Apple wants nothing to do with the future of the web.

FTFY

APPS APPS APPS

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#29

Post by NeutronStar »

izacus wrote: post #22
kevingadd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did Mozilla survive as a business? Why is Brave around?

Mozilla is financed directly by Google. Brave is injecting their own ads into websites. Not really the best examples.

What's to prevent chrome from being financed by google the search engine the same way Firefox is financed by Google the search engine?

Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny

#30

Post by r00fus »

morelisp wrote: post #8
derekp7 wrote: post #2

So 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.

It's all allowed because of Clinton-era bill that legalized data collection in the first place.

Can you imagine? Before that, databases of metadata couldn't be copyrighted without getting consent for the owners of said information.

Perhaps we should our digital ethics going back to basics - corporations shouldn't have a "right" to own data that doesn't belong to them.

Post reply on HN