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

#51

Post by local_dev » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:42 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…

I would say that we have different definitions of 'abuse' in the case of Google. Of course, Google doesn't sell your data directly to anyone, allow anyone to get your metadata, or allow anyone to view your data. In that sense, I also completely trust Google to be good stewards of my data.

That said, while I agree that Google does not 'abuse' my data by giving it to others in any form, Google absolutely does use my data to try to sell me things. From my perspective, this is abuse. Google is using data that I generated to psychologically manipulate my behavior.

When Google Search, gmail, and other like services from Google were released, Google was a tech company first and foremost. These properties/services were offered for "free". At the time, most people didn't realize that "free" meant paying with your data. Now, Google is an advertising company and I do not want them to have my data because of that fact. In a similar vein, if The Trade Desk or another adtech company provided a "free" email service it would likely not be widely adopted as it would be well understood that users are paying with their data.

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

#52

Post by geofft » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:44 PM UTC

josefx wrote: post #17

albertgoeswoof wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would chrome survive as a business?

How would Linux kernel development survive as a business?

Linux kernel development survives because its biggest users develop it.

It's certainly possible for a browser to survive that way, but Konqueror doesn't seem to be terribly successful.

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

#53

Post by warent » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:44 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

That is helpful, thank you

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

#54

Post by throw_away » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:44 PM UTC

radlad wrote: post #50

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mention nearly limitless options but fail to mention one. Can you give some examples?

default search seems to be pretty lucrative.

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

#55

Post by neolog » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:47 PM UTC

seaman1921 wrote: post #31

izacus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What would the bad consequences be?

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

#56

Post by ygjb » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:48 PM UTC

radlad wrote: post #50

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You mention nearly limitless options but fail to mention one. Can you give some examples?

at the very least, Google could pay to be the default search provider... it works for Mozilla, so far, and if Google had to , even at arms length, separate Chrome from the rest of Google, it would strengthen, not weaken, the case for Google's investment in paying Apple and Mozilla for top placement, helping to reinforce competition on both the mobile and browser fronts.

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

#57

Post by ogre_codes » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:48 PM UTC

Google's way of leveraging their browser dominance to use 3rd party cookies as a way to gain competitive advantage:

Step 1: Implement a whole new browser functionality where Google alone can track people.

Step 2: Eliminate 3rd party cookies so Google's competitors have to create increasingly unethical and invasive fingerprinting techniques to remain competitive.

Step 3: Increase advertising rates since they are the only company able to effectively target adverts on the web. (Profit)

Did I miss anything?

Google in their enthusiasm to prevent Microsoft from dominating the web has become worse than Microsoft was in its heyday.

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

#58

Post by throwaway3699 » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:49 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #52

josefx wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would Linux kernel development survive as a business?

Linux kernel development survives because its biggest users develop it. It's certainly possible for a browser to survive that way, but Konqueror doesn't seem to be terribly successful.

It's also worth thinking that many of those big users are also the very adtech companies people are hating on here, but for some reason it's fine to fund kernels and not web browsers with ads.

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

#59

Post by ljm » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:49 PM UTC

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?

Does it need to survive?

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

#60

Post by ogre_codes » Wed, Feb 03, 2021, 11:50 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…

Killing off 3rd party cookies is anti-competitive because Google has the means to continue tracking people without them.

If Google didn't own something like 60% of the browser market, it would just be a privacy enhancement.