21–30 of 69 posts
For some reason I imagine that if they actually were to ignore the regulators, the feedback from exactly the same commenters would not be positive.
Sounds like a great reason for everyone to stop using Chrome. This is a capability that's been in Firefox and Safari for awhile now. We're getting back to a point where the dominant browser is focused on rent-extraction over user-focused design and features, and alternatives are superior in pretty much every way other than bug-compat with the dominant browser (e.g. same thing we had in the IE6 days). There's no reaso…
Chrome still lets you block third party cookies. Not with an extension or some low level tweak; it's just in the settings.
Requiring opt-out (hidden at that!) is statistically the same as not supporting it. Most users will not know about this or be technically inclined enough to change it.
Google knows this. Some analyst or PM modeled it.
edit: Hello Google employees downvoting me. I'm confident nobody else on the planet wants this the way you do. You can censor me, an individual voice. But the world doesn't like or need this, and they're waking up. As are our legislators. Change your behavior and innovate in other areas that benefit society. (There are so many - nearly limitless!) The clock is ticking. They're building the antitrust cases as we speak, and this is the road you're actively choosing to go down. Not a good look, not the best step forward. I really do want the Google of 2005 to succeed; all of this has just been a misstep. Microsoft in 2021 is so much better than Microsoft of years past. Google could do the same. Don't be evil.
They may prefer not to see ads at all (who wouldn't?), but in terms of surveillance marketing, it's just not something that is perceived as adversely impacting their day-to-day experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chrome still lets you block third party cookies. Not with an extension or some low level tweak; it's just in the settings.
It shouldn't be a setting. Requiring opt-out (hidden at that!) is statistically the same as not supporting it. Most users will not know about this or be technically inclined enough to change it. Google knows this. Some analyst or PM modeled it. edit: Hello Google employees downvoting me. I'm confident nobody else on the planet wants this the way you do. You can censor me, an individual voice. But the world doesn't li…
Sounds like a great reason for everyone to stop using Chrome. This is a capability that's been in Firefox and Safari for awhile now. We're getting back to a point where the dominant browser is focused on rent-extraction over user-focused design and features, and alternatives are superior in pretty much every way other than bug-compat with the dominant browser (e.g. same thing we had in the IE6 days). There's no reaso…
Google should be barred from making a web browser. The DOJ should come down hard on this behavior. Not only is this monopolistic, but it's destroying the web and turning our privacy situation into a trash fire. They're making this 3rd party cookie decision at the behest of their adsense unit, and it's decisions like these that are infectious across product boundaries. AMP, no URL, increasingly unilateral and opaque H…
Many (I suspect a large majority) of users simply don't care about web browser privacy. And I don't mean lack of concern due to ignorance of the scope of the issue. I mean if you describe to them what a third party cookie does, they just don't see a material harm, or risk, or disadvantage. They may prefer not to see ads at all (who wouldn't?), but in terms of surveillance marketing, it's just not something that is pe…
https://blog.google/products/chrome/updated-timeline-privacy...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google should be barred from making a web browser. The DOJ should come down hard on this behavior. Not only is this monopolistic, but it's destroying the web and turning our privacy situation into a trash fire. They're making this 3rd party cookie decision at the behest of their adsense unit, and it's decisions like these that are infectious across product boundaries. AMP, no URL, increasingly unilateral and opaque H…
You could argue that there are more jobs on the line if they remove support than leaving it as is. AdTech is huge. Now go and tell any government entity about coming down "hard on this behavior".
So for two more years, Chrome will be the only major web browser to provide no reasonable expectation of privacy and security. Nobody should still be using it by 2023.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google should be barred from making a web browser. The DOJ should come down hard on this behavior. Not only is this monopolistic, but it's destroying the web and turning our privacy situation into a trash fire. They're making this 3rd party cookie decision at the behest of their adsense unit, and it's decisions like these that are infectious across product boundaries. AMP, no URL, increasingly unilateral and opaque H…
You could argue that there are more jobs on the line if they remove support than leaving it as is. AdTech is huge. Now go and tell any government entity about coming down "hard on this behavior".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google should be barred from making a web browser. The DOJ should come down hard on this behavior. Not only is this monopolistic, but it's destroying the web and turning our privacy situation into a trash fire. They're making this 3rd party cookie decision at the behest of their adsense unit, and it's decisions like these that are infectious across product boundaries. AMP, no URL, increasingly unilateral and opaque H…
You could argue that there are more jobs on the line if they remove support than leaving it as is. AdTech is huge. Now go and tell any government entity about coming down "hard on this behavior".
Should a company with the world's largest advertising and tracking business be in charge of 65% of the web?
Should they be able to unilaterally set standards?
Should they be allowed to delay rollout of consumer protections to defend their ad unit?
This alone poses an enormous problem.