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

Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 329 posts

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#81

Post by radlad »

bad_user wrote: post #63
pennybanks wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right but at least google will tell you. brave a lot more shady and just wont say anything or let you opt out. many examples in the past. imagine if they were anywhere near a quarter of googles size it wouldnt be pretty imo.

This is wrong. All settings in Brave with an impact on user privacy are opt-in. They even inform you of their product metrics, when you first start it, despite having a paper on how they anonymize that data. Versus Firefox, which never bothered. Firefox, which also added metrics for ads, similar with Privacy Sandbox, without informing users. I've never seen a browser with such a strong focus on privacy, the only cont…

> Brave has received negative press for diverting ad revenue from websites to itself,[30] collecting unsolicited donations for content creators without their consent,[43] suggesting affiliate links in the address bar[49] and installing a paid VPN service without the user's consent.[58]

These are the primary issues I hear about regarding Brave on this forum.

It's also founded by Brendan Eich who was forced out of Mozilla for his strong and vocal opposition of same-sex marriage. I tend to be a bit idealistic, but this is a strong reason for me to avoid Brave, especially when they are injecting content into pages.

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#82

Post by jahewson »

JohnFen wrote: post #42

That seems the obvious result of this sort of thing. > Related Website Sets (RWS) is a way for a company to declare relationships among sites, so that browsers allow limited third-party cookie access for specific purposes. So the website itself gets to declare other "blessed" domains that can bypass third party cookie blocks? Big websites are constantly looking for ways to abuse users by bypassing their attempts at p…

No, the website itself does not get to declare this. There’s a master list that they have to submit their site to and go through an approval process.

But as the article details, the contents of that preliminary list is already disconcerting. The whole “Google as the arbiter of all things ads” concept is a bust.

But the alternative isn’t great either - today’s system of third party cookies allows for far worse. We need some better ideas.

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#84

Post by devrand »

nicce wrote: post #56
rectang wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is still working great for me, and I intend to keep using it for the foreseeable future. I don't know what it might take for people to migrate away from Chrome en masse, but the alternative is there.

Mozilla is slowly turning to ad company too. Let's see what future brings us.

And the recent antitrust ruling against Google might see Mozilla lose like 80% of their revenue...

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#85

Post by codedokode »

Have been using Firefox for a long time, no issues, though long ago when I had little memory, Chrome was using less of it. Firefox also has HTTPS-only mode, encrypted DNS without fallbacks, supports SOCKS and Encrypted Client Hello (although almost no website support it). However, it is better to just buy more memory (unless you are lucky to use Apple products).

Regarding analytics, I believe browsers should take user's side and do not cooperate with marketing companies; even better, they should implement measures to make user tracking and fingerprinting more difficult. There is no need to track user's browsing history; just make a product better than competitors (so that it gets first place in reviews and comparisons) and buy ads from influencers.

It would be great if browsers made fingerprinting more difficult, i.e.: not allowed to read canvas data, not allowed to read GPU name, enumerate audio cards, probe for installed extensions etc. Every new web API should guarantee that it doesn't provide more fingerprinting data or hides the data behind a permission.

Regarding 3rd party cookies: instead of shady lists like RWS browsers should just add a button that allows 3rd party cookies as an exception on a legacy website relying on them (which is probably not very secure). Although, there is a risk that newspaper websites, blog websites and question-answers websites will force users to press the button to see the content.

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#86

Post by kevwil »

topspin wrote: post #23
acheron wrote: post #19

Padme: So then Brave isn’t going to be based on Chrome anymore, right?

Brave is a Chromium derivative, not Chrome. Can't imagine why any of this would imply they would need to stop deriving Chromium: they can develop and deploy whatever cookie policies and defaults they want.

Not to disagree with you specifically, but this seems a good context to make this point:

Maybe I missed the memo that we stopped hating monopolies? Every browser worth considering, except Firefox and Safari, is based on Chromium. Firefox and Safari make up about 20% global market share, meaning Chromium in about 80% [0]. A bug in Chromium is a bug in all of them. A backdoor in Chromium is a backdoor in all of them. A feature of Chromium, good or __bad__, is a feature in all of them. It baffles me that this isn't a bigger concern to more people.

[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#87

Post by heraldgeezer »

JonChesterfield wrote: post #16
cabbageicefruit wrote: post #11

Damn. If there was ever any doubt about why you should get off chrome, this seems to put an end to that.

Shed a tear for the Firefox that could have been

Firefox Nightly just got official vertical tabs. It is also just as fast as Chrome now, subjectively just browsing around.

No issues with Google services like Youtube (I'm an addict)

I keep Chrome installed just in case, and Edge due to being on Windows.

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#88

Post by heraldgeezer »

reaperducer wrote: post #66
JohnFen wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an option unless you're an Apple user, though.

I can't say what it's like on Linux or Windows, but the Duck browser is pretty good. It's my second choice. On Macs and iOS, and iPadOS, it's clunkier than Safari, but less clunky than Firefox. Perhaps the Windows experience is similar.

Just use Firefox... No need for more Chromeium forks.

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#89

Post by [deleted] »

kevwil wrote: post #86
topspin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave is a Chromium derivative, not Chrome. Can't imagine why any of this would imply they would need to stop deriving Chromium: they can develop and deploy whatever cookie policies and defaults they want.

Not to disagree with you specifically, but this seems a good context to make this point: Maybe I missed the memo that we stopped hating monopolies? Every browser worth considering, except Firefox and Safari, is based on Chromium. Firefox and Safari make up about 20% global market share, meaning Chromium in about 80% [0]. A bug in Chromium is a bug in all of them. A backdoor in Chromium is a backdoor in all of them. A…

[deleted]

Re: Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users

#90

Post by kevwil »

JonChesterfield wrote: post #16
cabbageicefruit wrote: post #11

Damn. If there was ever any doubt about why you should get off chrome, this seems to put an end to that.

Shed a tear for the Firefox that could have been

I'm concerned that if Google ever stopped paying Mozilla to be the default search engine in Firefox, Mozilla would not be able to afford continued development on Firefox.
Post reply on HN