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

81–90 of 112 posts

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#81

Post by SquareWheel »

jiveturkey wrote: post #68
SquareWheel wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>If they just wanted to drop 3p cookies without a replacement, they could.

That's debatable, but I doubt that's the case. The CMA isn't a privacy organization; they deal with monopolies. They're intervening at the behest of other advertisers who are concerned that they'll lose the ability to adequately track users under the Privacy Sandbox proposal. The CMA's chief concern is that everybody is on equal footing.

The alternatives proposed for more private ad targeting have gone through multiple evolutions, including FLoC and Topics, but these were created largely in response to the CMA's objections.

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#82

Post by tlogan »

nolist_policy wrote: post #66
tlogan wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

So companies need to pay for Chrome Enterprise Premium? Great!

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#83

Post by eviks »

surajrmal wrote: post #62
DamnInteresting wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Or maybe the alternative to coercion isn't to communicate better but not to deprecate?

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#84

Post by SleepilyLimping »

ethbr1 wrote: post #11
DanielHB wrote: post #10

the web version of Microsoft Teams doesn't work with 3rd party cookies disabled. I have been eagerly awaiting this change so I can use browser teams, it is the one thing I care about that doesn't work with 3rd party cookies disabled. edit: to my surprise apparently web teams (both "old" and "new") no longer needs 3rd party cookies enabled. Last I checked was a few months ago.

The only good thing about Teams is the fact that I can use the web version to join meetings and avoid using Teams. It had one @&_+ing job... And they managed to instead product design something with 2 (3?) different chat models, limitations around every corner, an incomplete API for basic use cases (e.g. getting notified of @'s), and an embedded ability to build entire apps inside Teams.

One-to-one calls won't work on web Teams for me using Firefox, but group calls will, for some reason.

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#85

Post by SquareWheel »

judiisis wrote: post #71
SquareWheel wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. Google has been trying to make this transition happen for years. The CMA is the one strong-arming them into maintaining the status quo. The article even mentions 39 new concerns raised which has resulted in yet another extension. Without this interference, third-party party cookies would have been dead years ago.

Privacy sandbox is not private, that's why ICO(UK's privacy watchdog) raised concerns, https://www.wsj.com/tech/google-cookies-replacement-not-enou...

Sorry, I'm not a WSJ subscriber. It wouldn't surprise me if Google are being squeezed between two organizations with different goals though.

Ultimately the Privacy Sandbox has dozens of different proposals, and each is on a separate standards track. It's not a singular technology.

I will say that many of the proposals do directly improve user privacy, or offer more-private alternatives to existing APIs. But I'd also be surprised if there weren't objections as well. It's the web, and scrutiny is important.

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#86

Post by IX-103 »

jiveturkey wrote: post #68
SquareWheel wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Hahaha...Oh, you're serious. Let me laugh harder...

The CMA has specifically mentioned that just blocking 3rd party cookies would provide Google an unfair competitive advantage because their large web presence allows them to develop better user advertising profiles based on just first party information. Advertisers without a large first party user base (because they only do advertising) would not be able to develop user profiles.

The whole privacy sandbox effort it's supposed to level the playing field between large content providers that are also advertisers (Google, Facebook, etc) and providers that only do advertising (Criteo, RTBHouse, etc). Google couldn't drop 3rd party cookies support without Privacy Sandbox.

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#87

Post by nolist_policy »

tlogan wrote: post #82
nolist_policy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enterprises can allow third party cookies via browser policy.[1] [1] https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/#BlockThirdPartyCoo...

So companies need to pay for Chrome Enterprise Premium? Great!

No, you don't need Chrome Enterprise Premium for browser policy/management.[1]

[1] https://chromeenterprise.google/products/chrome-enterprise-p...

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#88

Post by IX-103 »

judiisis wrote: post #71
SquareWheel wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. Google has been trying to make this transition happen for years. The CMA is the one strong-arming them into maintaining the status quo. The article even mentions 39 new concerns raised which has resulted in yet another extension. Without this interference, third-party party cookies would have been dead years ago.

Privacy sandbox is not private, that's why ICO(UK's privacy watchdog) raised concerns, https://www.wsj.com/tech/google-cookies-replacement-not-enou...

It's at least as private as third party cookies. And unlike third party cookies there is a path to improve privacy as technology improves.

Some of the required technologies (private model training, debuggable trusted execution environments) are still research topics, so some sacrifices have to be made until it can be deployed.

Re: Google delays third-party cookie demise yet again

#90

Post by DamnInteresting »

surajrmal wrote: post #62
DamnInteresting wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The browser extension I created, and presumably many others, will see no benefit from this forced change. To the contrary, Manifest V3 will hinder the functionality of some extensions, including the widely used and beloved uBlock Origin[1].

Nevertheless, if I wish to keep my extension in the Chrome Web Store, and keep it working in Chrome browsers, I am required to bend to Google's demands and spend a considerable chunk of my time to perform this unnecessary update. And it must be done NOW!, with an artificial sense of urgency. Time is precious, and I'd really rather not donate mine to a multibillion dollar advertising corporation. Google is the primary beneficiary of Manifest V3. They are demonstrating why they abandoned their "Don't be evil" mantra[2].

My browser extension doesn't make money. I made it purely to improve my own browsing experience, and shared it for free with others. It's working fine on Manifest V2, and has done so for years. I have no desire to learn Google's crappy new implementation.

[1] https://www.androidauthority.com/google-chrome-manifest-v3-c...

[2] https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-do...

Post reply on HN