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

Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

digiday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 112 posts

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#61

Post by tlogan »

nolist_policy wrote: post #19

Dear CMA, Can you please let Google do the right thing and disable third party cookies like every other browser vendor.

The main problem with disabling third-party cookies is that for certain applications (especially those using iframes and enterprise apps are full of iframes), the proposed alternatives have bugs.

Interestingly, Firefox does have these bugs, but these apps will not work on Firefox due to other issues.

Actually, it’s not clear whether these are bugs or just different interpretations of the specifications

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#62

Post by surajrmal »

DamnInteresting wrote: post #55
ethbr1 wrote: post #13

Meanwhile, in the Chrome MV2 -> MV3 extension saga, it seems like June 2024 is the newest new date in which MV2 may be phased out in pre-stable versions of Chrome. https://developer.chrome.com/blog/resuming-the-transition-to... At least, to Google's credit, they're starting to listen to users who give them solid reasons why a surprise migration isn't feasible... tomorrow.

I have a Manifest V2 extension in the Chrome Web Store that has a "featured" badge, and Google has been sending me emails that feel a bit coercive: > To maintain your extension's Featured status, you will need to migrate it to Manifest V3 by June 3rd. [...] Extensions that do not complete this transition will see their Featured badge removed > Manifest Version 3 extensions will be prioritized in the Chrome Web Store,…

Would you rather they deprecate manifest v2 without reaching out to developers to migrate?

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#63

Post by freedomben »

barnabee wrote: post #43
taf2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dear Internet user, third party cookies are also used be embedded web applications in services such as salesforce. Cookies are not only used for tracking, but also as an example, secure session allowing the bank to secure your login and also the person on the phone when call in helping you via their login. There are decades worth of applications created that likely will not be fixed…

Why should all of Society pay so that Saleforce, a profit-making company, doesn't have to maintain its software? I have 3rd party cookies as well as all ads and trackers blocked and have no major issues. On the odd occasion a site doesn't work, it doesn't get my business/attention. Non-technical people should be afforded the same protections.

I agree with you, but I do think it's fallacious to zero in on Salesforce in the example. That wasn't (likely) intended as a defense of Salesforce, it was just an example showing that there is a long historical usage of third party cookies that aren't purely for ads and tracking. It's impossible to predict how many things might break for people. For me (a uMatrix user and Firefox user) it will be zero. But for people who work and compute inside a corporate office using internal software that was "optimized for IE 6" but they still need to do their job, and the customers they serve (I have no doubt there would be plenty of government offices that will have to tell citizens who need government services to go pound sand), it will be highly disruptive. Dismissing all of those people and use cases with "who cares about Salesforce" is myopic and (for anyone with decision making ability) deeply irresponsible.

That said, this has been on the table now for years so it's time for the operators of these old apps to feel the heat. The Times They Are A-Changin'

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#64

Post by freedomben »

surajrmal wrote: post #60
freedomben wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do love when rhetorical questions actually have a simple answer. I'll admit I had a similar thought as GP (though I wouldn't have posted that thought as a comment without at least taking a look to verify my assumptions). I'm glad to see that it isn't a simple conflict-of-interest with their business that is holding it up. A great pro-tip I try to follow (but sometimes fail since this is human nature): don't make as…

I think the CMA does think it's a conflict of interest which is why they are stepping in. It seems like they think it's in Google's favor to remove third party cookies without a replacement.

Thanks that is interesting. To be clear though I meant a conflict-of-interest inside of Google. E.g. the ad division influencing the browser division to slow the roll to avoid damaging revenues/sales.

But I hadn't even considered that this might benefit Google, but that certainly makes sense! I'm grateful for good old British skepticism :-) Looking forward to their findings.

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#65

Post by nolist_policy »

surajrmal wrote: post #60
freedomben wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do love when rhetorical questions actually have a simple answer. I'll admit I had a similar thought as GP (though I wouldn't have posted that thought as a comment without at least taking a look to verify my assumptions). I'm glad to see that it isn't a simple conflict-of-interest with their business that is holding it up. A great pro-tip I try to follow (but sometimes fail since this is human nature): don't make as…

I think the CMA does think it's a conflict of interest which is why they are stepping in. It seems like they think it's in Google's favor to remove third party cookies without a replacement.

More importantly, it is also in customers favor to remove third party cookies.

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#66

Post by nolist_policy »

tlogan wrote: post #61
nolist_policy wrote: post #19

Dear CMA, Can you please let Google do the right thing and disable third party cookies like every other browser vendor.

The main problem with disabling third-party cookies is that for certain applications (especially those using iframes and enterprise apps are full of iframes), the proposed alternatives have bugs. Interestingly, Firefox does have these bugs, but these apps will not work on Firefox due to other issues. Actually, it’s not clear whether these are bugs or just different interpretations of the specifications

Enterprises can allow third party cookies via browser policy.[1]

[1] https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#BlockThirdPartyCoo...

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#68

Post by jiveturkey »

SquareWheel wrote: post #49
grishka wrote: post #37

Why don't they just unilaterally disable third-party cookies by default without providing any replacement? The only slightly valuable functionality that would be lost would be authentication in comment widgets like Disqus. Ah, right, the makers of the world's most popular web browser are also the world's most profitable online advertising company, that's why.

>Why don't they just unilaterally disable third-party cookies by default without providing any replacement? It's explained in the article, and below in this thread. They legally cannot due to intervention from the CMA.

That's not what the article says. The CMA is intervening based on their plan of replacing cookies with Topics (née FLoC). If they just wanted to drop 3p cookies without a replacement, they could.

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#69

Post by surajrmal »

oblio wrote: post #12
fancyfredbot wrote: post #7

Google delays third-party cookie demise in the Chrome browser yet again. Nothing is stopping anyone else from turning off third party cookies.

Defaults matter. 95% of people don't change defaults.

Chrome is not the default on anything other than android and ChromeOS. Yet it's quite popular to use chrome on Mac, Windows, Linux, and iOS.

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#70

Post by judiisis »

nolist_policy wrote: post #19

Dear CMA, Can you please let Google do the right thing and disable third party cookies like every other browser vendor.

"privacy sandbox" is a deceiving name,it is a harmful tracking tech,glad regulators(UK's privacy watchdog ICO) are waking up,but that also means status quo of 3rd party cookies remains until it's fixed https://www.wsj.com/tech/google-cookies-replacement-not-enou...
Post reply on HN