Comment by superfrank

> Companies don't make products out of the goodness of their hearts, they create products to make money.

Yes, precisely the point. This is to make money from you.

It would be much better if companies could make worthwhile services that we have a choice in supporting ( with our wallets by Buying products)

But there's a limited choice we have when chrome is defacto, from one company, that shove ads down our throats and gets paid for it.

Your grandma, mother or wife, aren't going to install adblockers. She'll get Ashley Madison ads whether she agrees to it or not, because she lingered a little too long on a erotic social media post, etc.

I think we all wish that advertising wasn't the product offered, and being gaslit into believing that other people want this.

> We don't get a choice in this matter and some feature for targeted advertising is going to exist

We can not use Chrome

Ok, so what is the product in the case of Google? As a user I've been led to believe the product is Google Chrome, a web browser that can browse the open internet. But it seems like in Google's mind, the product is my attention, which they sell to advertisers on behalf of publishers who insert tracking code (ads) on their sites. So in effect, the previously open internet becomes a product belonging to Google, where every site with adsense on it may as well be a Google property, in the sense that it's Google who is the ultimate benefactor of the fact that I viewed multiple sites in its "network."

This is a fine argument when talking about walled gardens like Facebook (setting aside for a second the issue of FB tracking pixels) - the entire site is their property, and it's their right to track me within it. But what rubs me the wrong way about Google adding tracking features to Chrome, is that they're exploiting an open platform to essentially turn it into a giant walled garden. And many publishers wouldn't necessarily be okay with this, in the sense that they're helping their competitors by leaking tracking data that ultimately leads to higher priced ads on those competing websites. But they don't have a choice because Google has an advertising monopoly.

The root problem is that the leading browser is developed by the leading advertising company, even though there's no fundamental reason for the two products to be so closely coupled. As a result, malign incentives leak into the product development because unlike other browsers from companies not supported by ads, which have removed third party cookies with no adverse consequences, Chrome cannot do the same without hurting their parent business. But note how fundamentally this has no impact on the browser itself - the conundrum is an artifact of who develops the browser.

In an ideal world, a web browser would be a piece of software thats either bundled with my operating system and subsidized by hardware sales of the manufacturer (as is the case with Safari and Apple), or if I wanted an alternative, an application that I could purchase with a one time payment or even a recurring fee. I would happily support the development of the product by paying for it, as I do with many products. But it's a false dichotomy to suggest that's what the Chromium tracking code is doing - it's supporting the Google monopoly, which extends far beyond just Chrome. If Google were simply a company that offered a web browser, then none of this would be an issue - third party cookies would be gone and there would be no need to add any tracking code, because removing the cookies didn't do any material harm to their business. But alas that's not the case, and we the users are left holding the bag and paying for it by letting Google and advertisers follow us around the internet.

Drink verification can.

How about getting malware through ad networks?

The final stage of the rollout happened a few months ago: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/firefox-rolls-out-total-.... The last section in that article also documents the history.

(This is also relevant in any antitrust considerations for Google, as noted in the jsnell subthread here—almost all of that stuff was in early 2021, when Google was somewhere in the middle of the pack in their proposals and suggested timeline; whereas if they released it now, they’d be aligning with everyone else. Google have made some noise about delays being for the sake of advertisers at least in part, but I believe that for all the other browsers, their delays have been largely or entirely about avoiding or minimising breaking websites that depended on third-party cookies for functionality, mostly legitimately.)

I’m not deeply familiar with things, but I don’t think that stuff should be relevant: if Google is getting information that other ad networks can’t (and I have no real idea about this), that’s a problem, and it’s unfair advantage and anticompetitive behaviour even while third-party cookies are a thing—just perhaps less extreme than after third-party cookies are removed. But any probes then should be more along the lines of “why is google.com privileged” rather than “Google must add the Topics API before removing third-party cookies”.

Safari and Firefox already disabled third-party cookies a while back. There’s no problem with that, right?

I wonder how Topics could change that reasoning.

The Topics API is intentionally much less capable than 3rd party cookies. So if Google phased out 3rd party cookies and replaced them with Topics, the abilities of non-google ad networks would already be curtailed. Meanwhile, the same restriction doesn't apply to Google as they can just have the browser track users in much the same way as 3rd party cookies used to do.

So even with Topics, there would be a power imbalance between Google and other ad networks.

Chrome already lets you delete cookies or browse in incognito mode, wouldn't the same argument mean they couldn't provide that? Disabling third-party cookies could be a switch in the settings that the user chose, like those.

This reads like "only tell people who ask, exploit those we can get away with, and when they start to catch onto our schemes, obfuscate the system by adding new complexity and telling them it's for their own good, then repeat."

It's fine if you want to opt into any tracking info you want. The issue is that it should be opt in and a clear choice, not obfuscated in the background or framed as if it's necessary for basic services to work.

Do you think that ads will provide them with enough revenue? Based on the current status-quo, ad-supported only services seem to be waning. Businesses would much prefer paying customers vs ad-supported, I think.

If that’s a choice you get to make without that choice being forced upon me because I clicked a link, great! We’re both happy.

I don’t mind a consent wall, or a paywall, but what I do mind is that the second I click a link, the page is already trying to turn my user agent against me to glean as much information about me as possible.