11–20 of 71 posts
If this is a more prominent & robust implementation of "Do Not Track" with actual teeth from the browser, I would be fully on board. It probably won't be, but it could.
Did I miss something here? It seems like a whole lot of marketing-speak that never gets around to describing what this "new path" consists of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or just get rid of cookies and let ad tech be less invasive. They tried to get rid of third-party cookies and regulators wouldn't let them do that.
Why? I get that publishers want ads but cookies are not required for ads. Safari and Firefox have 3P cookie restrictions already.
They should’ve started with user choice as the first milestone when it was originally announced. Similar to Apple’s app tracking. Or just get rid of cookies and let ad tech be less invasive.
Cookies are cross-platform, and transparent. I can see and edit and erase my cookies locally at any time.
I would rather tighten the rules around privacy and keep cookies around rather than the opposite.
> Instead of deprecating third-party cookies, we would introduce a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing, and they’d be able to adjust that choice at any time.
The OP also cites https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/15189422 (also published today) which makes the "why" of this self-evident:
> By comparing the treatment arm to control 1 arm, we observed that removing third-party cookies while enabling the Privacy Sandbox APIs led to -20% and -18% programmatic revenue for Google Ad Manager and Google AdSense publishers, respectively.
For the mysterious "new experience in Chrome" they mention, I'll be keeping an eye on their public planning repositories, but there's no guarantee that the project they're mentioning is related to any of these:
https://github.com/orgs/explainers-by-googlers/repositories?...
https://github.com/orgs/privacycg/repositories?type=all
https://github.com/privacysandbox/privacy-sandbox-dev-suppor...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? I get that publishers want ads but cookies are not required for ads. Safari and Firefox have 3P cookie restrictions already.
Because Google (the ad provider) gets to do all the tracking without third-party cookies (by asking Google (the web browser) for that information), which the other ad providers can't do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Google (the ad provider) gets to do all the tracking without third-party cookies (by asking Google (the web browser) for that information), which the other ad providers can't do.
I'm not aware of any functionality in Chrome that allows Google to get tracking data that other ad providers can't, but it seems like regulators should target that instead of preventing Chrome from banning third-party cookies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or just get rid of cookies and let ad tech be less invasive. They tried to get rid of third-party cookies and regulators wouldn't let them do that.
Why? I get that publishers want ads but cookies are not required for ads. Safari and Firefox have 3P cookie restrictions already.
A major problem with blocking third party cookies is that it kills any embeddable logged in experience. Think payment gateway widgets that would now require you to login every time you want to make a purchase, or youtube embeds that would no longer recognize your premium subscription and roll ads across the web if if you pay for none, etc.