Google is killing third-party cookies – advertisers still aren't ready
wsj.com
wsj.com
I'd also like to know some more details. Is this akin to archive.org, or more akin to archive.today? Those have different use cases. I'd like more information than is present in the FAQ, for example, will this archive block users of cloudflare DNS?
I'd love to use an archive like archive.today, which is more dependable and less idiosyncratic in what users it allows, so this looks promising.
logged in everywhere
Maybe, maybe not. Firefox market share is trivial at this point. I doubt Google invests a lot of time in figuring out how to track Firefox users specifically. Safari, especially on mobile, is a far more juicy target.
Combine that with standard fingerprinting techniques.
Can you explain this? I don't thinks this is the case. Disclosure: I work at Google but not on Chrome.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/google-agrees-to...
That doesn't sound like any sort of tracking backdoor in Chrome. That sounds like that same type of tracking would happen in Firefox private browsing mode. Well, maybe not because I think Firefox private mode has some sort of code that tries to strip out trackers. But if you disable that feature in Firefox, it sounds like Google would track Firefox private mode users the same as Chrome incognito users. I guess then you could consider the lawsuit to be complaining that Chrome doesn't have a feature to strip out trackers in incognito mode. Is that a realistic feature expectation?
That combined with the rollout of Manifest V3 permits them to axe adblockers whilst keeping full tracking enabled.
The userbase percentage lost from Firefox users (around 3%, everything else runs a Firefox derivative or is iOS with Safari, which Google assumes is dead in the water due to the DMA) isn't enough to not have them transition fully to the Topics API at this point because of the ad profits they think they can get out of unwinding adblockers in Chrome. Google is closing the advertising jaws around Chrome and this is what that looks like.
The Topics API requires Google to approve your script before it works and if they didn't care about Ads and third party cookies, they'd have turned it off long ago.
https://blog.google/products/chrome/privacy-sandbox-tracking...
On January 4, we'll begin testing Tracking Protection, a new feature that limits cross-site tracking by restricting website access to third-party cookies by default. We'll roll this out to 1% of Chrome users globally, a key milestone in our Privacy Sandbox initiative to phase out third-party cookies for everyone in the second half of 2024, subject to addressing any remaining competition concerns from the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/653a58e2e6c96...
We would like to reassure the ecosystem that deprecation of third-party cookies can only take place once the competition concerns, identified by the CMA during its investigation, are addressed by Google. We have asked Google to be clear about this in its communications. Under the Commitments, there will be a Standstill Period of 60 days that applies before third-party cookies can be removed. This period can be extended to 120 days. During the Standstill Period, we will determine whether third-party cookie deprecation can go ahead based on the evidence we are gathering. This includes evidence from tests of the tools conducted by Google and other market participants. Our aim is to gather evidence of the likely impacts of the changes by the middle of 2024. The Standstill Period will take place following this, and once testing has been completed.
Why spread misinformation so confidently if you aren't aware of what's happening in this case? It's not hard to find information about how regulators are making it hard for Google to remove third party cookies.
(Disclosure: until 2022 I worked in this area at Google)
Source - I work in marketing tech.
I am coming to find I don't want cookies, including first-party, on the vast majority of websites. Specifically, I only want first-party cookies on websites I login to.
Otherwise, I can't remember the last time in recent memory when first-party cookies benefitted me in some worthwhile way. They only serve to track me or otherwise disturb my peace for the benefit of the webmaster.
So far I've been opening a lot of websites in Private Mode, but maybe it's just easier to blanket blacklist all cookies and then handpick the small number I want to whitelist.
A very standard example is when you put something in a shopping cart the site needs some way to record this, which requires cookies or other client-side storage. And if it's a site you've never bought from before you wouldn't be logged in.
They (or an equivalent mechanism) is the only way to save state and create the concept of a “session”.
Sure, but they said they were ok with first party cookies on sites they log in to.
Some adblockers do an okay job of hiding those requests, but others do not.
It seems like modern web users need a browser that blocks trackers, an Authoritative DNS like Pi-Hole on the network that blocks trackers, an Authoritative DNS for Pi-Hole to query like NextDNS that blocks trackers, and, of course, a browser plug-in to augment the browsers tracker blocking ability like uBlock.
The "third-party" qualifier of the word "cookie" here is essential to what is happening, not incidental. It's like someone discovered a drug that kills all cancer cells, and then WSJ reports you discovered a drug that kills all cells. Third-party cookies are "frowned upon", normal cookies are essential for the web to function.
This headline is just plain and simple wrong, it would not be acceptable to make false headlines about economics, politics, climate or anything else, so it's also not okay for them to use false headlines about tech.
The article should be removed from HN.
It's common to use "cookies" to refer to any client side storage because at the time people first started talking about "cookies" the other forms didn't exist yet.
This would all be much clearer if we talked about "cross-site tracking".
The article says
> Cookies have been around since the early days of the web. Google’s changes target third-party cookies the online ad industry places on websites to track users around the internet
and
> Google’s changes don’t affect the kinds of cookies sites use to store basic information such as login details
What you are talking about is the headline. The headline is not meant to be a TL;DR of the article. It is meant to give you enough idea of a general idea about the article to decide if it is likely to interest you.
> By year’s end, Google plans to eliminate cookies for all Chrome users.
Which is a false statement, and misinforms users. If it later on contradicts itself it really doesn't improve anything.
Furthermore, making an accurate claim later does not excuse making a false claim earlier.
I'm not sure WSJ needs any defending here, and I'm not sure why so many people want to excuse their bad practices. What they are doing is wrong, they should not do it, of course they will continue doing it, this is so common that it has a label to describe it, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect [1], but it is still not excusable.
Maybe instead of defending WSJ, just expect better from them?
[1]: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_effect