• mke@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    163
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    All the more reason to use Firefox with uBlock Origin if you can, which despite concerns regarding Mozilla are still much more likely to align with users’ best interests and help you avoid being tracked all over the web.

    Instead of deprecating third-party cookies, we would introduce a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing, and they’d be able to adjust that choice at any time.

    What does this even mean, Google?

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      91
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      What does this even mean?

      There’s an opt-out check box buried 4 clicks deep in Chrome settings. The choices are “Allow 3rd party Cookies” and “Ask me later”.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      4 months ago

      Means they’d like to replace cookies with something proprietary that they control.

    • sfxrlz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      Enshittification is a pattern where online services and products experience a decline in quality over time. It is observed as platforms transition through several stages: initially offering high-quality services to attract users, then shifting to favor business customers to increase profitability, and finally focusing on maximizing profits for shareholders at the expense of both users and business customers. #

      • mke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Edited to clarify which one I was referring to.

        The definition of issue here changes significantly from person to person, from some disliking Firefox’s visual design to others criticizing business and technical decisions by Mozilla.

        Honestly, there’s nothing I feel like bringing up and starting another discussion over. I mostly added that to stop certain folks from cleverly answering “but what about <issue>? Mozilla isn’t a saint!” As though that wasn’t taken into account from the start.

        • chickenf622@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s not an issue inherent to Firefox and anyone that cares enough to block cookies usually has the know-how of how to re-enable them for a specific page.

          • sep@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Total cookie protection can have site breakage, even for very casual users. And it is enabled by default. That beeing said it is easy to stop for a site. And quite rare. Total cookie protection is a very nice fix for the cookie tracking issue imho.

      • mke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Seems they’re both from the same developer, with slightly different objectives. However, uMatrix’s repository has been archived and hasn’t updated in years. Even if you use a fork, the first line of the README is “Definitely for advanced users.” I don’t consider uMatrix a working solution for the average user, which is most people.

        I don’t feel like engaging with the first phrase of your comment as it is, lacking even a single concrete example or further resources to look into.

  • dinckel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    4 months ago

    Remember when cookies were used for session data, and local preferences? Good times

  • radivojevic
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think this is the first time Google killed a plan to kill.

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m going to wager that killing cookies was going to kneecap their ad business significantly, so they got cold feet and are looking for a scapegoat.

    • Spotlight7573@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 months ago

      They definitely knew it would impact their ad business but I think what did it was the competition authorities saying they couldn’t do it to their competitors either, even if they were willing to take the hit on their own services.

      Impact on their business (bold added): https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/15189422

      • Programmatic revenue impact without Privacy Sandbox: By comparing the control 2 arm to the control 1 arm, we observed that removing third-party cookies without enabling Privacy Sandbox led to -34% programmatic revenue for publishers on Google Ad Manager and -21% programmatic revenue for publishers on Google AdSense.
      • Programmatic revenue impact with Privacy Sandbox: By comparing the treatment arm to control 1 arm, we observed that removing third-party cookies while enabling the Privacy Sandbox APIs led to -20% and -18% programmatic revenue for Google Ad Manager and Google AdSense publishers, respectively.
    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Are there any methods of saving login and session data without the use of cookies? Because if Google killed cookies and I had to log in every single time I wanted to use something: I would stop using everything because of the inconvenience.

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    4 months ago

    So… was Google just fucking with advertisers, basically saying “you’re so dependent on us, we can choose to make you freak out about a technology change that never happens?” That would be pretty diabolical, which means I wouldn’t put it past them.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      4 months ago

      The goal was to come up with an alternative that gave Google a significant advantage in advertising while appearing to protect privacy. That project has apparently failed, so it’s now more like business as usual.

  • 0oWow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 months ago

    So they get to keep their Ad Privacy malware and cookies. Sounds like that was their endgame.