Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by seaman1921 » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:15 PM UTC

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.

Honestly several of these guys just want to promote 'break google up' every chance they get just because it makes them feel good - without understanding how bad the consequences would be.

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

#32

Post by NeutronStar » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:16 PM UTC

DenisM wrote: post #20

warent wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

FWIW I don't find it snarky. Could you explain instead of just linking to the guidelines?

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

#33

Post by awalton » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:17 PM UTC

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…

> Is there anything that can be done that would satisfy all regulations?

We could go back to having advertisements be relevant to the content audience instead of the specific viewer and end stalkerware for good.

Crazy talk, I know...

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

#34

Post by coliveira » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:21 PM UTC

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…

You're right, everything they do is illegal because it is an illegal monopoly that needs to be broken up.

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

#35

Post by Wowfunhappy » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:22 PM UTC

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…

No. The reason Google is killing third party cookies in Chrome (I firmly believe) is because Google—and only Google—doesn't need cookies to track you. Google owns the browser.

If Google was killing third party cookies in Chrome while also removing other tracking features, regulators wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But back in the real world, they are absolutely correct to see through Google's BS.

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

#36

Post by fungi » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:25 PM UTC

seaman1921 wrote: post #26

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…

false dichotomy

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

#37

Post by contravariant » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:27 PM UTC

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…

I think you're slightly off on that first one. Killing 3rs party cookies isn't anti-competitive, in fact I'd argue any decent browser should do it to protect their users' privacy.

What is possibly anti-competitive is their proposed alternative. And frankly I'm not sold on the supposed privacy of such an alternative either (which, in order to be functionally different from 3rd party cookies, will have to store personal identifying information in a location that users cannot access, edit and/or control).

Note also that (to my knowledge) browsers are not currently obligated to protect their users' privacy (though perhaps they should be, it makes more sense than punishing websites for sending cookies). This leaves google at least 2 completely legitimate options:

1. Keep 3rd party cookies.

2. Kill 3rd party cookies.

Sure the first will cost them their privacy conscious users and the second might hurt their ad business, but rejecting that choice on the sole grounds that it would hurt the bottom line of a different venture is textbook anti-trust. They'll probably list other reasons for not taking that second option, though I've not found them terribly convincing so far.

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

#38

Post by taylorfinley » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:27 PM UTC

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.

I've been using Brave on mobile and my laptop (currently running Pop!_os) exclusively for about six months now, coming from Firefox. Your criticism isn't accurate, Brave doesn't insert ads into pages, it gives you the option of receiving ads in your notification stream. If you choose to allow the ads you are compensated with a small amount of a crypto currency, which you can opt to have automatically distributed to the participating sites you visit. Wikipedia, for example, is a participating site. These micropayments offer the only viable monetization alternative I'm aware of to charging for access, selling user data, or including advertising on your page. I've moved to using Brave exclusively because I want to live in a world where the web is free to access but my privacy is respected and my browser isn't crowded with ads.

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

#39

Post by yalogin » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:27 PM UTC

This is the equivalent of saying Company X makes the best light bulbs, we fear consumers won't buy other brands and so we don't want to allow X to sell bulbs.

If anything this is a privacy concern, and a huge motivation for regulation. Cookies at least gives some iota of control to the user to stop tracking and know when its happening. However with the new approach users will be tracked all over incessantly. There is no stopping it

It's not that hard to see other companies will adopt the same architecture and kill cookies. For example, I can bet facebook is working on something similar.

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

#40

Post by Simulacra » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:27 PM UTC

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…

In a word, no. Google and other corporate monoliths like it depend on data, as much as they can get, as personal as it can be, and pervasive as the air we breathe. Consumers want privacy, control over their data, and the power to say no. The only sensible middle ground is for Google and others to be up front about the data, what they do with it, where it goes, etc. and the consumer having the ability to say no. Unfortunately Google, etc. cannot back away from their position because they risk losing a market edge. Perhaps PAYING users for their data, that would be an interesting middle ground, but the shareholders of the monoliths would likely reject such a proposal.