91–100 of 112 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps they should switch to first party cookies?
How would that work on embedded videos on sites outside of YouTube/Google, which is what the parent comment is talking about?
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.
Sounds like a very flimsy excuse, Safari has blocked 3PC by default for years, so the restriction would apply to iOS Chrome as well. Didn't need the UK to sign off on it.
https://webkit.org/tracking-prevention/#intelligent-tracking...
I pay for Youtube Premium, which uses third-party cookies to not show ads on embedded videos. https://privacysandbox.com talks about advertising, but not "logged in elsewhere" functionality. Does Youtube or Google have something ready, or will all Youtube Premium subscribers see ads on embedded videos?
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Storage_Acc...
https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/3pcd/storage-a...
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.
Pure speculation, but maybe there's more to this. If Teams refuses to work in Chrome, it might drive run of the mill employees to Edge?
I pay for Youtube Premium, which uses third-party cookies to not show ads on embedded videos. https://privacysandbox.com talks about advertising, but not "logged in elsewhere" functionality. Does Youtube or Google have something ready, or will all Youtube Premium subscribers see ads on embedded videos?
The recommended solution for embedded content is the Storage Access API, which has broad browser support. (I don't know that YouTube has implemented it yet, but I'd be surprised if it's not there soon.) https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Storage_Acc... https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/3pcd/storage-a...
From Google's own page: "Work is continuing to resolve all remaining blocking issues, before standardizing the API."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would that work on embedded videos on sites outside of YouTube/Google, which is what the parent comment is talking about?
Aren't those just iframes, which is effectively just youtube loading inside an existing web page instead of its own tab. I would assume first party cookies would work just fine for this.
Put another way, an ad iframe loading a tracking (identity) cookie is indistinguishable from a YouTube iframe loading a login (identity) cookie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The recommended solution for embedded content is the Storage Access API, which has broad browser support. (I don't know that YouTube has implemented it yet, but I'd be surprised if it's not there soon.) https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Storage_Acc... https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/3pcd/storage-a...
The Storage Access API is an unmitigated pile of garbage. Google's page on it admits as much ( https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/3pcd/storage-a... ). From Google's own page: "Work is continuing to resolve all remaining blocking issues, before standardizing the API."
Any specific problems you ran into that you could share?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't those just iframes, which is effectively just youtube loading inside an existing web page instead of its own tab. I would assume first party cookies would work just fine for this.
Nope, an iframe on an unrelated site is exactly what turns it into a third party cookie. (The user and the site they're visiting are the first two parties; the embedded site is the third party.) Put another way, an ad iframe loading a tracking (identity) cookie is indistinguishable from a YouTube iframe loading a login (identity) cookie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, an iframe on an unrelated site is exactly what turns it into a third party cookie. (The user and the site they're visiting are the first two parties; the embedded site is the third party.) Put another way, an ad iframe loading a tracking (identity) cookie is indistinguishable from a YouTube iframe loading a login (identity) cookie.
i still don't follow. i guess my point is, when an embedded video loads for me, youtube still knows that it's me . it gives me the same recommended videos i'd get if i were on youtube.com directly. so i assume since i pay for premium, it'd also skip ads on embedded videos too. i wouldnt know because i use ublock.
If/when third party cookie blocking is fully deployed, this won't be true. Your browser won't send YouTube's session cookie to YouTube when it's loaded in an iframe on an unrelated site, so YouTube won't know you're a premium user.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 u…
[0] https://www.adexchanger.com/marketers/the-uks-cma-wants-ad-t...