They just play with legal technicalities. Legal focus to cookies has to be the most disingenuous thing ever. It's like blaming and banning butter knives to restrict murder. They are already working on other things to replace cookie tracking... Any type of tracking without consent should be illegal.
As far as I know, the GDPR was made to be a general "no tracking without consent" law as previous laws / attempts at laws were indeed flawed like you said. The actual reason is that Google wants to ban 3rd party cookies because they want to move tracking into Chrome itself, thus giving them a monopoly on that, since they just disable any competitors.
@@SkyyySi Correct! And by shifting to this walled-garden approach, Google is indeed further consolidating its influence and control over personal data monetization. USA!
I was about to comment this as well when I heard "new feature" called tracking protection at the first minute. though yeah it appears that chrome is finally getting a privacy upgrade hopefully they don't push the manifest v3{anti-ad-block tech extension framework} nonsense anymore. though with the revived push for it I don't think that's the case. Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
Blocking third-party cookies isn't new. What's new is the tons of new browser APIs that Google came up with so that they can continue profiting off of you, even without third-party cookies.
@@TheSensationalMr.ScienceThis isn't a privacy update. This is so Google can integrate tracking directly into Chrome, which most other browsers won't do, so it pushes websites to not support anything other than Chrome. And Google could track people even better.
@@nikkiofthevalley didn't know about the new API's being mentioned but yeah definitely a google move from what I have seen; though then again I don't use google chrome I use a Firefox derivative known as librewolf. so I * should * be safe.... we'll see... again, Manifest V3 and that nonsense. Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
The problem is that the government doesn't understand things by design. No representative can be an expert at literally everything, so they rely on experts to explain things. The problem is that we call those experts "lobbyists". They have their own interests, and they often want to misguide.
@@venus2677 Unfortunately, I think in the US right now a person simply cannot be elected and stay elected beyond local government without appeasing donors, except in a rare unicorn case. Getting elected is way too expensive after citizens united.
@@RaisedWhiteMist The problem is people of good faith just want to live their lives peacefully. While the power hungry are the ones running for political positions.
Ah yes, the good old "disable evil 3rd party cookies, so that we can track you instead, and then we sell your data to the evil 3rd parties". Genius. Someone has clearly played Monopoly as a kid!
Exactly this. Google doesn't need 3rd party cookies when Chrome itself can track you down to individual clicks. If other ad providers don't like it, they can just make their own browsers, amirite? They also don't need to worry about non-Google OAuth sign-in on websites plain not working without allowing some 3rd party cookies exceptions because Chrome does the Google login thing directly without cookies, web standards be damned.
"If a site in a test can't function" Brother I've been blocking third party cookies for at least a year and I have yet to find a site that doesn't work without them.
I've found a bunch now but they're mainly news creation/regurgitation sites on Global Corporation network and some French fake "local" news sites. Blocking third party cookies redirects either to a "Accept our cookies, scum" page or a "Pay us plz" page.
Firefox has blocked them for 5 haha, its just a ploy for google to say theyre considering angles so it looks less bad on them to wall garden their shit
For anyone that's confused here's the explanation; the key to this gibberish is the part of the article that mentions "FLEDGE" (renamed to the Protected Audience API). It's already being used on this 1% of Google Chrome users, this technology is in many ways worse than cookies are for privacy [which means more money for Google when the sell an Ad]. Websites can use FLEDGE just like they've been using cookies. In many ways FLEDGE has been supposedly designed to be "more privacy preserving" than cookies by allowing Advertizers to bid on a group of people with similar interests (instead of relying on cookies). But if we start to think about how the heck they figure out what group to put you in, we can start to see how this can be much worse than cookies.
In case you haven’t learned if a govt and/or large corporation wants you to have more privacy that always means they themselves want to monopolize the “privacy”. No govt or corporation has your best interests in mind. It’s always about control or market share. That’s always the end game. It might be the initial intentions but that is where it always leads to.
I mean... google is the biggest contributer to US politicians. And it's well known by now, that the commies in EU can be bought for the right price too, reference to the latest corruption scandal in dubai.
They've been working on a replacement based on the FLOCS proposal (can't remember what the current version of that name is). Basically they want to move the ad tracking functionality out of cookies and into the Chrome browser itself. As if I needed another reason to keep using Firefox.
Firefox already does this, but since Chrome wasn't onboard, a number of websites that heavily depend on third-party cookies do not always work. Let's hope this move by Google finally encourages them to do so.
I don't actually know of a single website that doesn't work due to third party cookies (e.g. login issues, etc.) on firefox Sometimes they don't work because of other reasons (which has gotten more over the years, sadly)
Unfortunately Firefox will probably never support FLEDGE (renamed to the Protected Audience API), this is what the whole article was about and what 1% of Chrome users now have instead of cookies. So if websites start relying on FLEDGE technology for the same reasons they use third party cookies, which they already are [for Ads] then the websites will break in the same way on Firefox that they do now.
@@GeorgeN-ATX Though third party cookies had some genuine applications (e.g. around logging in with a separate server, or even a seperate service you don't control), that Fledge is unlikely to directly replace, so I expect less broken stuff on firefox, but worry that when firefox categorically doesn't support that new ad framework, sites would just block firefox
The reason why this is problematic is because of the sandboxing technology that is behind it. Basically they want to make it so that you can only visit certain sites if you're using a specific browser. This is essentially DRM for the web. So yes, they are deprecating cookies but in favor of much worse technologies.
funny thing about the plastic bag thing.. almost everything you buy in the grocery store that you used to put in a plastic bag is it self wrapped in plastic.
9:05 Funny thing with Miles that it was originally a 1000 left step of Roman Legionaries. They had the metric conversion figured out back then, but it just turned out that a step is not quite one meter :D
I actually know one of the google employees that is going over to Europe and trying to identify what is needed to "reduce the impact on competition". From my understanding there is a relatively strict boundary between the Chrome teams and the advertising teams to prevent exactly what you're talking about and from what I was told it's enforced legally inside of the company. I believe the change is being driven by privacy but the chrome team but they have to operate inside of a larger business. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the things driving this change was their ability to convert views to purchases and by standardizing the advertising APIs they allow for better conversions and therefore can charge more. In my experience the advertising algorithms are pretty terrible at recommending me things that I either already have or have no interest in purchasing.
FLEDGE (Protected Audience API) is essentially the new ways users are already being tracked. Most of the article was about this, it was just in corporate speak.
3:10 I believe it's Google polite way of saying 'Hey, my angle of attack is this:The old model has problems, the new one makes more sense but it will take time to switch'
The difference is that Chrome will also have a bunch of new Ad bidding APIs so that Google can keep profiting from you, even without third party cookies.
@@ShadoFXPerino is that supposed to be better? I would prefer neither of the 2. I've noticed the adds i'm most interested in are the random adds when they aren't targetting to show me the same add 5000 times
"The government sucks" Your rant about how bad government is at doing sensible things has now made you my favorite UA-camr. I mean.. you already we're but now I have yet another reason.
But think about this. Most politicians are owned by google and microsoft and other conglomerates. It's not just the government governing, it's a mix. Like the way China does it. Half way communism/fascism. And neither of them are on our side.
The most American thing i heard is measuring views in terms of miles. Just call it CPV cost per view, why mile Edit: i just searched it in Google and it's not mile, it's mille which stand for 1000 in Latin. This is the most non American I have ever felt.
The replacement is called FLEDGE (now called the Protected Audience API). For the most part this is what the article was about, FLEDGE is supposed to be more privacy preserving than cookies, but as you can imagine it's anything but. The bidding in the article is referring to how FLEDGE works; Users are put into groups based on shared interests, and then those groups are bid on by companies that want to show Ads to those people. It's when we start thinking about how do they know which group to put you in that it becomes creepy. FLEDGE is how that 1% of users are still being targeted with Ads now that websites don't have access to their third-party cookies.
As an American, I wasn't following along until he started talking about how Miles are measured by how far you can throw a stone 57 times. Then, I understood everything. Big G is terrible, and this is just a ploy to increase their revenue while giving them more control over tracking. FU BigG!
Yeah! Only Google can sell my 3rd party site cookies to other companies. If they just leave the cookies out there for everyone to aggregate in-house then how could I possibly sell you the smell of cookies I collected???
People are just going to get pissed off with the constant pop-ups about disabling tracking protection because most advertisers won't support this initially or at all. Then they will just disable tracking protection entirely. This seems vaguely familiar for some reason 🧐
Rather than benefitting Google, it just mainly seems to hurt Facebook and Twitter's ability to target advertisements. Google can still effectively target via you syncing your browser history, reading your gmail, knowing your youtube watch history, and your android phone usage.
IIRC this is the team I was interviewing for at Google a couple years ago. The idea is to expose browser apis that let ad sdks know what you're interested in broadly speaking so they can still do targeted ads (sort of) but not give out enough information for them to know who you are or build a specific profile on you. And supposedly Google ads is going to adhere to this just like the rest of the ad industry. TBH it seems like a good idea
While the idea sounds great in theory, there is a bit of a conflict of interest. I mean Google is going to enforce new restrictive rules for 3rd party cookies, but who's going to enforce the same rules upon Google? The answer is: Google, if they want to. I agree with prime that this whole thing could very well be used to just destroy the competition and make more money on ads, and the only thing any of us can do is hope they enforce those rules upon themselves, which i doubt in the case they lost money enforcing them. While i am not an expert on advertising, i do not think a somewhat generalized ad pays as much as a fully personalized one for obvious reasons.
@@gavunku Don't worry! If Google's walled-garden approach works and they end up taking even more centralized control of the personal data monetization market, I'm sure the US government will step in and regulate on our behalf! /s You're correct that broad marketing has a lower ROI than well targeted ads. They also cost more in total, since you have to cast a wider net. They're usually cheaper per mil, but that will go away once everyone has to bid on a broader pool.
@@CaptTerrific the problem with the latter part of your comment is that everyone need to be under the same set of rules for the thing to be fair. If google competition(aka the rest of the world) makes an x amount of money per ad since they have to use a more generalized ads approach, google can claim that they enforce the rules fairly all they want, but who guarantees that they do not make some sort of under the table deal where they get x*2( even x^2 or whatever the rate may be) money per ad with the advertisers since they'd be the only ones with personalized ads? The answer to that would be the first sarcastic part of your comment(the goverment)which sound scarier every time i think about it tbh
It is a good idea except for the part it consolidates control with Google. If this was being created in conjunction with an independent non-profit organization in control of the data with strict oversight from the government, then it would be a good idea. Since this puts Google in control of the data it really is just Google using it as an excuse to give themselves more power over advertising.
Just to add the Chrome error (in Chrome's dev tools) when 3rd party cookies exist on a site now: Cookies with the SameSite=None; Secure and not Partitioned attributes that operate in cross-site contexts are third-party cookies. Chrome is moving towards a new experience that lets people make an informed choice with respect to third-party cookies. And of course no tech is complete without a cute cookie metaphor, with the new Cookies Having Independent Partitioned State (CHIPS) implementation.
Google is only doing this because Firefox has been for a year now and their browser is lagging behind in features. The issue is if you're using Chrome Google doesn't need to use cookies to track you, they can directly get tracking info from the browser itself.
This article was mostly about FLEDGE [which was renamed to the "protected audience API"]. This 1% of Chrome users are now entirely on FLEDGE instead of third-party tracking cookies. Firefox, Safari, & Even chromium-based browsers like Brave have been invited by Google to use FLEDGE as much as they like. They've all refused, for different reasons. Though chromium based browsers like Brave might not have a choice eventually [because they can't really indefinitely do their own fork of the entire chromium open source maintaining themselves, they might try their darndest though]. If sites start breaking from FLEDGE in similar ways because of how they currently break from third-party cookies then any browser that doesn't use FLEDGE will break on those sites. In many ways it's much worse for privacy than cookies ever were. They try to sell it as better for privacy because users are sorted into groups that are then auctioned off to people who want to show those users an Ad, but figuring out which users should go in what like-minded group is worse than cookies or other tracking really ever could be.
It’s more likely to be related to Apple than Firefox. Safari was the first to block third party cookies by default and they have a much larger market share then Firefox. And also GDPR bringing more people’s attention to cookies and providing another way to block them. (correction, FF was first, but that's not the main point, the market share is)
@@TheGameMakeGuy My mistake (people make them you know), I thought they added the setting in 2019 but it wasn't by default until a bit later. Regardless of that, Google will care more about what Apple does than what Firefox does because Firefox is relatively niche compared to Safari. As much as I wish that wasn't the case and that Firefox never lost the excellent market share they used to have, it's just how it is, regardless of what you think of Apple. And if you corrected people just on the facts of the topic without calling them ridiculous names like Apple NPC it would make you look less foolish (see, you make mistakes too).
@@pieflies I kind of doubt it really has much to do with either Firefox or Safari's influence/market share. FLEDGE works far better at Ad Targeting & targeting in general than third-party cookies do, unless you're going hyper niche cohort (10,000 or less total). or I suppose that would include stuff like one or two people; cookies would be better then as well. (I think we all know the paranoid schizophrenics/terrorists that think/know a company or government is tracking just them already have third-party cookies disabled.) (See my first reply to this comment for stuff about FLEDGE, it's mentioned in the article [in the video].)
I think some of their disabling cookies is because cookies have such a bad reputation AND people are disabling them. So if you call them something else.. the EU cookie laws no longer apply and you can go back to tracking. Not necessarily helping them more than other marketing companies.
I mean, google and microsoft are both working on the same thing, a replacement for cookies, and for that I wouldn't use either chrome or edge. They can say all they want that they have users interests as priority, but users are not the primary income source, that's the companies using googles and microsofts products. There is an in particujlar good reason to ditch youtube and migratge to rumble though, censorship. Google has completely destroyed what youtube was once, a platform for expression. Rumble is new, like youtube was back then, and doesn't seem to have the restrictions on expression that youtube now has. My bet is, that youtube is going to end up as an echo chamber for left winger commies and not much else.
Governments, you mean same people who first unofficially work and loby for 'corporations' (weird term for a group of people) then get a seat at the table, maybe shares whatever, or corporations work for them.
@@TheGameMakeGuy I didn't need to change because my default browser is firefox since chrome was not even a thing. It doesn't mean I should think everything is fine. How do we convince people to change?
What do you need to know: 1. Tell friends to install Firefox, LibreWolf, Safari or Brave 2. Install one of those browsers on your parents and family's devices 3. Let Chrome deprecate :).
"Tracking Protection will be activated for... a randomly selected group..." I've spent enough time in computer security to understand that nothing is random.
@@cameron7374 Only that the group that receives the offer first probably isn't random. Google has enough controversy around the new manifest, I'm sure this roleout is designed to produce favorable data.
This video title scared me. Layoffs? At least I get severance... No cookies in the microkitchen/cafeteria? Unacceptable. They're practically forcing us to quit.
The funny thing here is it still requires javascript for the tracking, sure Google could build it into the browser directly, which would be likely from what we are hearing. However I don't use Google Chrome, so will that mean that their tracking will not work? Also sadly until another competitor comes to the website analytics space, Google will always win, they built their advertising software based on knowing websites wanted a way to track their customers, then Google decided to start selling ads because they had all this data on users. Its no different to Podcast advertising, the more data podcaster advertising companies have, the better it is for the advertiser and the company providing the service.
Firefox blocks third party cookies by default and allow even stricter opt-in protection. The only difference is, they don't decide to have their own proprietary system to have the monopoly on collecting your data.
The difference is that Chrome will also have a bunch of new Ad bidding APIs so that Google can keep profiting from you, even without third party cookies.
I actually really like the idea. Cookies are files in your PC managed by sites. This is really a bad idea, each site should function on each own sandbox, even saving the files accessible by the file system seems problematic. Hopefully cookies will be removed completely, and shift into a model, where saving files ask for the permision of the user, and ideally is a sinlge small file.
I honestly feel a similar way about JavaScript. Sites shouldn't store files on the device without the user manually requesting a download, but they also shouldn't run code (especially proprietary code) on your device, either. Web sites should tend more towards being data files for browser display, rather than progressively acting more like programs. If you need a program, make software, not a website.
@@AbandonedVoid The moment you introduce auth logic into your site, which is any site that wants to sustain itself, it stops being just a collection of "data files". And I am sure you aren't going to shell out 40 bucks per month per site which has to serve unique html on each request just because you are iffy about client-side code. That also begs the question why "software" is given a pass in this regard, since it can deploy a full blown web server on your machine for two-way communication with any other server on the internet, with no regard to system-wide network settings or specifications (outside of the firewall on the router). The installation process will require superuser access level anyway.
To be fair, make a company like this “go broke”, or refrain from their primary means of income (Chrome specifically) and you’ll be left with an annual subscription just to use a browser. I think a lot of people would rather be tracked by cookies. It’s annoying, and I can’t stand it, but it feels like a “no free lunch” scenario. That being said, monopolies are bad, they kill competition and hurt consumers in the long run.
As a developer, all this video did for me was tell me how the OP hasn't a clue about any of this. The 3rd party cookie deprecation has been in the works for chrome for nearly half a decade. Firefox and Safari already have 3rd party cookies disabled. The reason this is such a massive challenge for Chrome is because they hold 70% of the market share of people who browse the internet. Thousands upon thousands of companies have been depending on 3rd party data for 2 decades now. To all of a sudden just shut that off with no recourse would be chaos for many companies. Chrome has been trying to find viable options or replacements for years now, so that more private tracking measures can be put into place. There are many ways to utilize data and tracking and advertisement, but as the owner of a website you rely on data and analytics for your own visitors, this type of stuff needs to keep functioning in one manner or another.
Cookie consent banners use first-party functional cookies to display and store preferences, so they won't break. Problem is, we'll need to leave them on for stupid EU laws even though they won't do anything useful after 3rd-party are gone. Users can turn off all cookies (turning off site specific preferences) which means they'll need to click through a cookie consent banner on every visit. And Google's alternative tracking methods won't be affected by EU privacy laws, because of technical words.
How people think government considers things: "will banning plastic bags help the environmemt?" How they actually consider things: "will banning plastic bags increase my likelability in the 25-35 yr old blue-haired rust developer demographic?"
noticethat that its google making this annoucement you know, the company that notably has the capability of tracking your internet movement across websites without having to tell you about it. the only reason they are doing this is because they want ot make use of their tracking capabilites but want to close off their ecosystem to competitors.
... and even the straw itself is lined inside with a polymer so that it doesn't melt immediately. It's one of the most inane things ever done under the guise for carrying for the environment (and the turtles, don't forget the turtles!), right up there with the anti-nuclear craze that we're only now starting to realize how damaging it was...
Choke-point capitalism at its worst. Like Amazon, Google functions as a monopsony. In the case of Amazon it is a monopsony over all retail, and for Alphabet it is advertising telemetry data.
@@TheGameMakeGuy it is not really the users fault. Google got into this position not by being a bad actor, but by offering a perceived superior product. It was only after they gained market dominance that they turned into a bad actor, which is often the case with monopolies. That is why we have anti-monopoly/anti-trust laws because these companies don't usually get there by being bad actors, but they turn into bad actors once they are there. We just have a problem of government not doing their job and breaking up Google.
The solution to all of this is: No one owns my data but me. If you and I do business, you don't get to sell that to someone else. If you offer a site for me to visit, my data on your site belongs to me.
Not sure if this is a EU thing but a majority of sites I visit now have a CMP that lets users decline all non essential cookies Since like 2019 at least
It’s an EU thing, but it’s negatively affected the whole world because we all use the same websites to some extent. What a waste of resources and patience that whole thing is. You can already disable third party cookies in most web browsers. Forcing it to be implemented at the website level is insanity.
Nope... chrome is good for web development, I do use lighthouse and things like that, but firefox I trust way more for surfing than a browser owned by a monopoly. I also recommend all youtubers to ditch youtube and migrate to rumble instead, because youtube has become an evil censorship machine. Rumble is more what youtube was in the beginning, not as many silly restrictions. And you can actually make money also as a creator on rumble. It's just not a monopoly and not censorship.
If governments didn't know what they were doing they would occasionally appoint someone in your favor by accident. Consistently giving serious roles to unqualified people isn't what you do when you don't know how to run the company- it's what you do when you want to give people a reason to let you sell it. Also M=1,000 in roman numerals. CPM has nothing to do with mileage. Duh.
Okay, I'm not a web dev, so maybe I'm misunderstanding, but wouldn't this make it so that most websites would be forced to work even without cookies. This would be true whether you use Chrome or not. You could use Brave instead, and Brave should have a better UX after this since Brave blocks trackers by default. Wouldn't this move help privacy focused browsers more than Chrome?
@@olhoTronThey absolutely will, not just probably. Cookies are an integral part of making a web app. They've gotten a really bad reputation since non-webdevs pretty much exclusively talk about them in the context of tracking, but in reality, that's just one of their many uses.
For the things that currently work via third party cookies, they aren’t making them magically just work, they are introducing a new way of doing those thing that isn’t cookies, because the majority of people think cookies = bad so removing cookies is good. So they look like the good guys. All the same things that happen now in relation to tracking will still happen, they will just be implemented in a different way. You can already disable third party cookies in most browsers so this is not something to help users, it’s to help ad companies (eg. Google) get around people disabling third party cookies. Most (probably almost all) websites already work fine without third party cookies. They are not usually required for the functionality of the site, although for some sites if they lose their ad revenue then they might be unviable and their site goes away and you can’t use it anymore.
It's absolutely remarkable how dropping "Don't be evil" pretty much immediately meant implicitly becoming "Do Evil, but don't get caught". It's like, capitalism without restrictions is effectively just racketeering. A scamconomy.
@@joelv4495 True. Once Google saw all of the money it could make by being evil it was already enthusiastically doing sketchy things behind the scenes. Remember when it was exposed that some of their user privacy settings were a dead end and really didn't do anything?
Get ready for a fourth-party cookie =)
nah, waiting for the fifth-party. Skipping this update
ipv5
You know they already have a backdoor for this 😅
@@chigozie123 Same like how the fuck does youtube bypass auto play blocks
@@AndrieMC They don't?
They just play with legal technicalities. Legal focus to cookies has to be the most disingenuous thing ever. It's like blaming and banning butter knives to restrict murder. They are already working on other things to replace cookie tracking... Any type of tracking without consent should be illegal.
As far as I know, the GDPR was made to be a general "no tracking without consent" law as previous laws / attempts at laws were indeed flawed like you said. The actual reason is that Google wants to ban 3rd party cookies because they want to move tracking into Chrome itself, thus giving them a monopoly on that, since they just disable any competitors.
fun fact: Scotland kinda did the knife thing at some point
GDPR is not specific to cookies. It applies to all personal data and tracking, even storing data on paper about another person is affected by GDPR
@@horseradish843 As a Note when you use Chrome you allow Google to track you so consended that Google can track you regarding GDPR
@@SkyyySi Correct! And by shifting to this walled-garden approach, Google is indeed further consolidating its influence and control over personal data monetization. USA!
Firefox had third-party cookies disabled by default for almost 5 years now.
I was about to comment this as well when I heard "new feature" called tracking protection at the first minute. though yeah it appears that chrome is finally getting a privacy upgrade hopefully they don't push the manifest v3{anti-ad-block tech extension framework} nonsense anymore. though with the revived push for it I don't think that's the case.
Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
Blocking third-party cookies isn't new. What's new is the tons of new browser APIs that Google came up with so that they can continue profiting off of you, even without third-party cookies.
@@TheSensationalMr.ScienceThis isn't a privacy update. This is so Google can integrate tracking directly into Chrome, which most other browsers won't do, so it pushes websites to not support anything other than Chrome. And Google could track people even better.
@@nikkiofthevalley didn't know about the new API's being mentioned but yeah definitely a google move from what I have seen; though then again I don't use google chrome I use a Firefox derivative known as librewolf. so I * should * be safe.... we'll see... again, Manifest V3 and that nonsense.
Hope you have a great day & Safe Travels!
@@nikkiofthevalley other browsers will be forced to do this as well, at least Firefox will, since they run on Google's money.
The problem is that the government doesn't understand things by design. No representative can be an expert at literally everything, so they rely on experts to explain things. The problem is that we call those experts "lobbyists". They have their own interests, and they often want to misguide.
@@RaisedWhiteMist You could elect people with the best intentions and they would still make mistakes. Things are not black and white like this.
@@marcelocardoso1979 At least it would be viewed as a mistake and could be rectified. Right now being "misguided" by lobbyists is business as usual.
@@venus2677 Unfortunately, I think in the US right now a person simply cannot be elected and stay elected beyond local government without appeasing donors, except in a rare unicorn case. Getting elected is way too expensive after citizens united.
@@RaisedWhiteMist The problem is people of good faith just want to live their lives peacefully. While the power hungry are the ones running for political positions.
This is a First Past the Post issue. We need voter reform with Ranked Choice Voting and Proportional Districting.
Ah yes, the good old "disable evil 3rd party cookies, so that we can track you instead, and then we sell your data to the evil 3rd parties". Genius. Someone has clearly played Monopoly as a kid!
Exactly!
Exactly this. Google doesn't need 3rd party cookies when Chrome itself can track you down to individual clicks. If other ad providers don't like it, they can just make their own browsers, amirite?
They also don't need to worry about non-Google OAuth sign-in on websites plain not working without allowing some 3rd party cookies exceptions because Chrome does the Google login thing directly without cookies, web standards be damned.
"If a site in a test can't function"
Brother I've been blocking third party cookies for at least a year and I have yet to find a site that doesn't work without them.
I've found a bunch now but they're mainly news creation/regurgitation sites on Global Corporation network and some French fake "local" news sites. Blocking third party cookies redirects either to a "Accept our cookies, scum" page or a "Pay us plz" page.
Firefox has blocked them for 5 haha, its just a ploy for google to say theyre considering angles so it looks less bad on them to wall garden their shit
For anyone that's confused here's the explanation;
the key to this gibberish is the part of the article that mentions
"FLEDGE" (renamed to the Protected Audience API).
It's already being used on this 1% of Google Chrome users, this technology is in many ways worse than cookies are for privacy [which means more money for Google when the sell an Ad].
Websites can use FLEDGE just like they've been using cookies.
In many ways FLEDGE has been supposedly designed to be "more privacy preserving" than cookies by allowing Advertizers to bid on a group of people with similar interests (instead of relying on cookies).
But if we start to think about how the heck they figure out what group to put you in, we can start to see how this can be much worse than cookies.
This type of tracking is already illegal in the EU...
I believe this is called profiling
In case you haven’t learned if a govt and/or large corporation wants you to have more privacy that always means they themselves want to monopolize the “privacy”. No govt or corporation has your best interests in mind. It’s always about control or market share. That’s always the end game. It might be the initial intentions but that is where it always leads to.
I mean... google is the biggest contributer to US politicians. And it's well known by now, that the commies in EU can be bought for the right price too, reference to the latest corruption scandal in dubai.
They've been working on a replacement based on the FLOCS proposal (can't remember what the current version of that name is). Basically they want to move the ad tracking functionality out of cookies and into the Chrome browser itself. As if I needed another reason to keep using Firefox.
FLEDGE, now called Protected Audience API is what they are testing out atm.
Firefox already does this, but since Chrome wasn't onboard, a number of websites that heavily depend on third-party cookies do not always work. Let's hope this move by Google finally encourages them to do so.
I don't actually know of a single website that doesn't work due to third party cookies (e.g. login issues, etc.) on firefox
Sometimes they don't work because of other reasons (which has gotten more over the years, sadly)
@@vocassenthe Google nest thermostat webui doesn't work without adding a cookie exception. Maybe this will encourage Google to fix their own cookies
Unfortunately Firefox will probably never support FLEDGE (renamed to the Protected Audience API), this is what the whole article was about and what 1% of Chrome users now have instead of cookies.
So if websites start relying on FLEDGE technology for the same reasons they use third party cookies, which they already are [for Ads] then the websites will break in the same way on Firefox that they do now.
@@GeorgeN-ATX Though third party cookies had some genuine applications (e.g. around logging in with a separate server, or even a seperate service you don't control), that Fledge is unlikely to directly replace, so I expect less broken stuff on firefox, but worry that when firefox categorically doesn't support that new ad framework, sites would just block firefox
This move by google just replaces cookies with something that is harder to block, how is that possibly a win?
The reason why this is problematic is because of the sandboxing technology that is behind it. Basically they want to make it so that you can only visit certain sites if you're using a specific browser. This is essentially DRM for the web. So yes, they are deprecating cookies but in favor of much worse technologies.
Yes, this article doesn't even mention the DRM proposals from Google which they want to use to ban ad blockers altogether
@@ragectl ban adblockers and force people to use chrome.
@@TheGameMakeGuy any company that uses Google's ad service will need to implement it. So yeah that's like the majority of the internet.
Sounds like Google just wants to be the only one who can track you.
funny thing about the plastic bag thing.. almost everything you buy in the grocery store that you used to put in a plastic bag is it self wrapped in plastic.
9:05 Funny thing with Miles that it was originally a 1000 left step of Roman Legionaries. They had the metric conversion figured out back then, but it just turned out that a step is not quite one meter :D
A meter is not quite a meter neither, so it probably evens out. 😂
@@NonYabidnis "A meter is not quite a meter neither," - citation needed
I actually know one of the google employees that is going over to Europe and trying to identify what is needed to "reduce the impact on competition". From my understanding there is a relatively strict boundary between the Chrome teams and the advertising teams to prevent exactly what you're talking about and from what I was told it's enforced legally inside of the company. I believe the change is being driven by privacy but the chrome team but they have to operate inside of a larger business.
I wouldn't be surprised if one of the things driving this change was their ability to convert views to purchases and by standardizing the advertising APIs they allow for better conversions and therefore can charge more. In my experience the advertising algorithms are pretty terrible at recommending me things that I either already have or have no interest in purchasing.
Just ditch chrome for anything else than web development and ditch youtube and move to rumble instead, SO much better.
I have disabled third-party cookies since 2019. Too bad there's gonna be new ways to track users in the upcoming days.
FLEDGE (Protected Audience API) is essentially the new ways users are already being tracked.
Most of the article was about this, it was just in corporate speak.
google is wild, anything you do on a browser or phone is sent to datacenter.
"Let's let Tim Cook" that's a keeper!
Can we just get rid of targeted ads and go back to "HOT MOMS IN YOUR AREA WAITING FOR YOUR REPLY"?
3:10
I believe it's Google polite way of saying 'Hey, my angle of attack is this:The old model has problems, the new one makes more sense but it will take time to switch'
Oh man, we need some antitrust on this
That would be nice. But sadly anyone who has the power to force antitrust actions has been bought and corrupted.
@@Tazzquilizer buy one congress man and get second one for free
firefox has been blocking 3th party cookies for years. No websites has been broken that i noticed. LOL
The difference is that Chrome will also have a bunch of new Ad bidding APIs so that Google can keep profiting from you, even without third party cookies.
@@ShadoFXPerino is that supposed to be better? I would prefer neither of the 2. I've noticed the adds i'm most interested in are the random adds when they aren't targetting to show me the same add 5000 times
"The government sucks" Your rant about how bad government is at doing sensible things has now made you my favorite UA-camr. I mean.. you already we're but now I have yet another reason.
But think about this. Most politicians are owned by google and microsoft and other conglomerates. It's not just the government governing, it's a mix. Like the way China does it. Half way communism/fascism. And neither of them are on our side.
The most American thing i heard is measuring views in terms of miles.
Just call it CPV cost per view, why mile
Edit: i just searched it in Google and it's not mile, it's mille which stand for 1000 in Latin.
This is the most non American I have ever felt.
It’s a joke.
I suspect the "replacement" for cookies is going to be rolled into Passkey implementation, which is why Google has been going *hard* pushing for it.
The replacement for cookies is that chrome is the browser and knows everything about where you go.
@@MadaraUchihaSecondRikudo Also true, but I'd suspect they'd want a way to tap into Safari's market share.
The replacement is called FLEDGE (now called the Protected Audience API).
For the most part this is what the article was about, FLEDGE is supposed to be more privacy preserving than cookies, but as you can imagine it's anything but.
The bidding in the article is referring to how FLEDGE works; Users are put into groups based on shared interests, and then those groups are bid on by companies that want to show Ads to those people.
It's when we start thinking about how do they know which group to put you in that it becomes creepy.
FLEDGE is how that 1% of users are still being targeted with Ads now that websites don't have access to their third-party cookies.
Bro the measurements... 😂
(For anyone curious, CPM stands for cost per mille with mille just being a different word for thousand)
The Cookie Monopoly. First came the girl scouts. Second came Google.
As an American, I wasn't following along until he started talking about how Miles are measured by how far you can throw a stone 57 times. Then, I understood everything. Big G is terrible, and this is just a ploy to increase their revenue while giving them more control over tracking. FU BigG!
Yeah! Only Google can sell my 3rd party site cookies to other companies. If they just leave the cookies out there for everyone to aggregate in-house then how could I possibly sell you the smell of cookies I collected???
This is CLEARLY just a way to limit competition because they can track in their own proprietary ways lmao
It's cost per mille (pronounced like milleh), which is French for 1000
Prime... It's cost per mille, not cost per mile, with mille being Latin / Italian / French for a thousand 😂
"Could you be more terse?" - I've developed a habit to always end my Jippity prompts with "Be concise."
People are just going to get pissed off with the constant pop-ups about disabling tracking protection because most advertisers won't support this initially or at all. Then they will just disable tracking protection entirely.
This seems vaguely familiar for some reason 🧐
Live in colorado, they already did the plastic bag thing like 2 years ago. The funniest thing is that takeout delivery food still uses them.......
Rather than benefitting Google, it just mainly seems to hurt Facebook and Twitter's ability to target advertisements.
Google can still effectively target via you syncing your browser history, reading your gmail, knowing your youtube watch history, and your android phone usage.
wonder if facebook prepared some steps to mitigate that.
IIRC this is the team I was interviewing for at Google a couple years ago. The idea is to expose browser apis that let ad sdks know what you're interested in broadly speaking so they can still do targeted ads (sort of) but not give out enough information for them to know who you are or build a specific profile on you. And supposedly Google ads is going to adhere to this just like the rest of the ad industry. TBH it seems like a good idea
Sounds like a good idea! Let's the user stay private while still allowing for business to be made
While the idea sounds great in theory, there is a bit of a conflict of interest.
I mean Google is going to enforce new restrictive rules for 3rd party cookies, but who's going to enforce the same rules upon Google?
The answer is: Google, if they want to.
I agree with prime that this whole thing could very well be used to just destroy the competition and make more money on ads, and the only thing any of us can do is hope they enforce those rules upon themselves, which i doubt in the case they lost money enforcing them.
While i am not an expert on advertising, i do not think a somewhat generalized ad pays as much as a fully personalized one for obvious reasons.
@@gavunku Don't worry! If Google's walled-garden approach works and they end up taking even more centralized control of the personal data monetization market, I'm sure the US government will step in and regulate on our behalf! /s
You're correct that broad marketing has a lower ROI than well targeted ads. They also cost more in total, since you have to cast a wider net. They're usually cheaper per mil, but that will go away once everyone has to bid on a broader pool.
@@CaptTerrific the problem with the latter part of your comment is that everyone need to be under the same set of rules for the thing to be fair.
If google competition(aka the rest of the world) makes an x amount of money per ad since they have to use a more generalized ads approach, google can claim that they enforce the rules fairly all they want, but who guarantees that they do not make some sort of under the table deal where they get x*2( even x^2 or whatever the rate may be) money per ad with the advertisers since they'd be the only ones with personalized ads?
The answer to that would be the first sarcastic part of your comment(the goverment)which sound scarier every time i think about it tbh
It is a good idea except for the part it consolidates control with Google. If this was being created in conjunction with an independent non-profit organization in control of the data with strict oversight from the government, then it would be a good idea. Since this puts Google in control of the data it really is just Google using it as an excuse to give themselves more power over advertising.
Just to add the Chrome error (in Chrome's dev tools) when 3rd party cookies exist on a site now:
Cookies with the SameSite=None; Secure and not Partitioned attributes that operate in cross-site contexts are third-party cookies. Chrome is moving towards a new experience that lets people make an informed choice with respect to third-party cookies.
And of course no tech is complete without a cute cookie metaphor, with the new Cookies Having Independent Partitioned State (CHIPS) implementation.
Ok but paid plastic bags work well in europe. It's been years since I
ve seen one rolling down a street like a dystopian tumbleweed.
Google is only doing this because Firefox has been for a year now and their browser is lagging behind in features.
The issue is if you're using Chrome Google doesn't need to use cookies to track you, they can directly get tracking info from the browser itself.
This article was mostly about FLEDGE [which was renamed to the "protected audience API"].
This 1% of Chrome users are now entirely on FLEDGE instead of third-party tracking cookies.
Firefox, Safari, & Even chromium-based browsers like Brave have been invited by Google to use FLEDGE as much as they like. They've all refused, for different reasons.
Though chromium based browsers like Brave might not have a choice eventually [because they can't really indefinitely do their own fork of the entire chromium open source maintaining themselves, they might try their darndest though].
If sites start breaking from FLEDGE in similar ways because of how they currently break from third-party cookies then any browser that doesn't use FLEDGE will break on those sites.
In many ways it's much worse for privacy than cookies ever were.
They try to sell it as better for privacy because users are sorted into groups that are then auctioned off to people who want to show those users an Ad,
but figuring out which users should go in what like-minded group is worse than cookies or other tracking really ever could be.
It’s more likely to be related to Apple than Firefox. Safari was the first to block third party cookies by default and they have a much larger market share then Firefox.
And also GDPR bringing more people’s attention to cookies and providing another way to block them.
(correction, FF was first, but that's not the main point, the market share is)
@@TheGameMakeGuy My mistake (people make them you know), I thought they added the setting in 2019 but it wasn't by default until a bit later. Regardless of that, Google will care more about what Apple does than what Firefox does because Firefox is relatively niche compared to Safari. As much as I wish that wasn't the case and that Firefox never lost the excellent market share they used to have, it's just how it is, regardless of what you think of Apple.
And if you corrected people just on the facts of the topic without calling them ridiculous names like Apple NPC it would make you look less foolish (see, you make mistakes too).
@@pieflies I kind of doubt it really has much to do with either Firefox or Safari's influence/market share.
FLEDGE works far better at Ad Targeting & targeting in general than third-party cookies do, unless you're going hyper niche cohort (10,000 or less total).
or I suppose that would include stuff like one or two people; cookies would be better then as well.
(I think we all know the paranoid schizophrenics/terrorists that think/know a company or government is tracking just them already have third-party cookies disabled.)
(See my first reply to this comment for stuff about FLEDGE, it's mentioned in the article [in the video].)
Consumers : Google you've saved us!
Google : Oh I wouldn't say freed, more like, under new management!
"A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned." [Brooks, Firefly]
I think some of their disabling cookies is because cookies have such a bad reputation AND people are disabling them. So if you call them something else.. the EU cookie laws no longer apply and you can go back to tracking. Not necessarily helping them more than other marketing companies.
I mean, google and microsoft are both working on the same thing, a replacement for cookies, and for that I wouldn't use either chrome or edge. They can say all they want that they have users interests as priority, but users are not the primary income source, that's the companies using googles and microsofts products. There is an in particujlar good reason to ditch youtube and migratge to rumble though, censorship. Google has completely destroyed what youtube was once, a platform for expression. Rumble is new, like youtube was back then, and doesn't seem to have the restrictions on expression that youtube now has. My bet is, that youtube is going to end up as an echo chamber for left winger commies and not much else.
Governments, you mean same people who first unofficially work and loby for 'corporations' (weird term for a group of people) then get a seat at the table, maybe shares whatever, or corporations work for them.
I think it is interesting how things only changes to worse
@@TheGameMakeGuy I didn't need to change because my default browser is firefox since chrome was not even a thing. It doesn't mean I should think everything is fine. How do we convince people to change?
I guess that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
They will just use indexed db and javascript instead, or fingerprinting
@@anon8510 your solution breaks the internet
What do you need to know:
1. Tell friends to install Firefox, LibreWolf, Safari or Brave
2. Install one of those browsers on your parents and family's devices
3. Let Chrome deprecate :).
Gimme that first-party cookie. That perpetual Quic telemetry. That tastes good with coffee. Watch all the excessive udp outbound traffic.
"Tracking Protection will be activated for... a randomly selected group..."
I've spent enough time in computer security to understand that nothing is random.
What are you trying to imply here?
@@cameron7374 Only that the group that receives the offer first probably isn't random. Google has enough controversy around the new manifest, I'm sure this roleout is designed to produce favorable data.
This video title scared me. Layoffs? At least I get severance... No cookies in the microkitchen/cafeteria? Unacceptable. They're practically forcing us to quit.
Now only google can track you via chrome and you have to pay them for the information. HURRAY!
“can someone explain...”
We can’t afford QA.
The funny thing here is it still requires javascript for the tracking, sure Google could build it into the browser directly, which would be likely from what we are hearing. However I don't use Google Chrome, so will that mean that their tracking will not work?
Also sadly until another competitor comes to the website analytics space, Google will always win, they built their advertising software based on knowing websites wanted a way to track their customers, then Google decided to start selling ads because they had all this data on users.
Its no different to Podcast advertising, the more data podcaster advertising companies have, the better it is for the advertiser and the company providing the service.
It's similar thing to what they were trying to do with their own AdBlock
Firefox blocks third party cookies by default and allow even stricter opt-in protection. The only difference is, they don't decide to have their own proprietary system to have the monopoly on collecting your data.
If something is free, you're the product.
"Your microphone is off" (c) Google Chrome
last time I used firefox was 2011, welcome back old friend
Man I understood so little of this ad-sector jargon mess
I think firefox does that by default and I never noticed anything breaking
The difference is that Chrome will also have a bunch of new Ad bidding APIs so that Google can keep profiting from you, even without third party cookies.
I keep asking Google to not track my location. It often works for several weeks 😂
Like apple tried to protect ur privacy while making it a monopoly
I actually really like the idea. Cookies are files in your PC managed by sites. This is really a bad idea, each site should function on each own sandbox, even saving the files accessible by the file system seems problematic. Hopefully cookies will be removed completely, and shift into a model, where saving files ask for the permision of the user, and ideally is a sinlge small file.
I honestly feel a similar way about JavaScript. Sites shouldn't store files on the device without the user manually requesting a download, but they also shouldn't run code (especially proprietary code) on your device, either. Web sites should tend more towards being data files for browser display, rather than progressively acting more like programs. If you need a program, make software, not a website.
@@AbandonedVoid The moment you introduce auth logic into your site, which is any site that wants to sustain itself, it stops being just a collection of "data files". And I am sure you aren't going to shell out 40 bucks per month per site which has to serve unique html on each request just because you are iffy about client-side code.
That also begs the question why "software" is given a pass in this regard, since it can deploy a full blown web server on your machine for two-way communication with any other server on the internet, with no regard to system-wide network settings or specifications (outside of the firewall on the router). The installation process will require superuser access level anyway.
To be fair, make a company like this “go broke”, or refrain from their primary means of income (Chrome specifically) and you’ll be left with an annual subscription just to use a browser. I think a lot of people would rather be tracked by cookies. It’s annoying, and I can’t stand it, but it feels like a “no free lunch” scenario. That being said, monopolies are bad, they kill competition and hurt consumers in the long run.
As a developer, all this video did for me was tell me how the OP hasn't a clue about any of this. The 3rd party cookie deprecation has been in the works for chrome for nearly half a decade. Firefox and Safari already have 3rd party cookies disabled. The reason this is such a massive challenge for Chrome is because they hold 70% of the market share of people who browse the internet. Thousands upon thousands of companies have been depending on 3rd party data for 2 decades now. To all of a sudden just shut that off with no recourse would be chaos for many companies. Chrome has been trying to find viable options or replacements for years now, so that more private tracking measures can be put into place. There are many ways to utilize data and tracking and advertisement, but as the owner of a website you rely on data and analytics for your own visitors, this type of stuff needs to keep functioning in one manner or another.
It bothers me more that Google has the ability to run a/b testing on a browser. Why is the damn browser reporting home at all? Glad I dropped chrome.
Thanks for the news!
Why can't we measure everything in kangaroo hops so everyone can be happy
So this will immediately break cookie consent banners.
Cookie consent banners use first-party functional cookies to display and store preferences, so they won't break. Problem is, we'll need to leave them on for stupid EU laws even though they won't do anything useful after 3rd-party are gone.
Users can turn off all cookies (turning off site specific preferences) which means they'll need to click through a cookie consent banner on every visit.
And Google's alternative tracking methods won't be affected by EU privacy laws, because of technical words.
@@PaulMcCannWebBuilder "Break" not being the right word, but rendered pointless. And I had just implemented a bunch of them so I'm salty.
I never got to a third party anyway
I want to be tracked by so many companies, nobody has to buy ads from Google... so the opposite of what they are doing.
My uni phased out cookies when I lost marks for using cookie sessions instead of db ones.
That was a while back.
How people think government considers things: "will banning plastic bags help the environmemt?"
How they actually consider things: "will banning plastic bags increase my likelability in the 25-35 yr old blue-haired rust developer demographic?"
Most of the the 3rd party cookies on my site are actually from Google's products
Loud man hates single source cookies :P
__axcshually__ CPM is cost per mille ( pronounced as mill ) which is latin for one thousand.
CPM = Cost Per MIlle. Mille == Latin for a 1000s. No feet required.
For those that don't know, a mile is about 5,200 feet.
Only WE THE GODS OF GOOGLE are allowed to have your data!
noticethat that its google making this annoucement
you know, the company that notably has the capability of tracking your internet movement across websites without having to tell you about it.
the only reason they are doing this is because they want ot make use of their tracking capabilites but want to close off their ecosystem to competitors.
Paper straw that melts within 5 minutes in a plastic sleeve for a plastic cup with a plastic lid. Thanks California.
... and even the straw itself is lined inside with a polymer so that it doesn't melt immediately. It's one of the most inane things ever done under the guise for carrying for the environment (and the turtles, don't forget the turtles!), right up there with the anti-nuclear craze that we're only now starting to realize how damaging it was...
Choke-point capitalism at its worst. Like Amazon, Google functions as a monopsony. In the case of Amazon it is a monopsony over all retail, and for Alphabet it is advertising telemetry data.
@@TheGameMakeGuy it is not really the users fault. Google got into this position not by being a bad actor, but by offering a perceived superior product. It was only after they gained market dominance that they turned into a bad actor, which is often the case with monopolies. That is why we have anti-monopoly/anti-trust laws because these companies don't usually get there by being bad actors, but they turn into bad actors once they are there. We just have a problem of government not doing their job and breaking up Google.
10:48 do you call films a "long long"?
I love your videos
Do third party cookies even work for marketing? They always seem so off mark, and often juat shoe me what i already use or have.
Hello there here comes the KNIFE 1:26 !
Nobody mentioning manifest v3 yet? That thing also has a date causing adblockers to stop working...
The solution to all of this is: No one owns my data but me.
If you and I do business, you don't get to sell that to someone else. If you offer a site for me to visit, my data on your site belongs to me.
Not sure if this is a EU thing but a majority of sites I visit now have a CMP that lets users decline all non essential cookies
Since like 2019 at least
It’s an EU thing, but it’s negatively affected the whole world because we all use the same websites to some extent.
What a waste of resources and patience that whole thing is.
You can already disable third party cookies in most web browsers. Forcing it to be implemented at the website level is insanity.
Question: Do people who have privacy concerns actually use Chrome?
Nope... chrome is good for web development, I do use lighthouse and things like that, but firefox I trust way more for surfing than a browser owned by a monopoly. I also recommend all youtubers to ditch youtube and migrate to rumble instead, because youtube has become an evil censorship machine. Rumble is more what youtube was in the beginning, not as many silly restrictions. And you can actually make money also as a creator on rumble. It's just not a monopoly and not censorship.
I just had to call my beautiful wife (yes, I have one too) over, take my headphone off, and say "watch this .. this is why I watch him"
If governments didn't know what they were doing they would occasionally appoint someone in your favor by accident. Consistently giving serious roles to unqualified people isn't what you do when you don't know how to run the company- it's what you do when you want to give people a reason to let you sell it. Also M=1,000 in roman numerals. CPM has nothing to do with mileage. Duh.
Safari has disabled third party cookies by default since it's inception.
FYI it's Ana Miličević.
Okay, I'm not a web dev, so maybe I'm misunderstanding, but wouldn't this make it so that most websites would be forced to work even without cookies. This would be true whether you use Chrome or not. You could use Brave instead, and Brave should have a better UX after this since Brave blocks trackers by default. Wouldn't this move help privacy focused browsers more than Chrome?
If there are no longer tracking cookies, why would you still be using browsers that block them?
Only third party cookies are being blocked, same-site cookies will still work and probably will work forever
Because I don't trust Google to not collect my data. Also, after using it for a while, I feel as if Brave already has better UX somehow.
@@olhoTronThey absolutely will, not just probably. Cookies are an integral part of making a web app. They've gotten a really bad reputation since non-webdevs pretty much exclusively talk about them in the context of tracking, but in reality, that's just one of their many uses.
For the things that currently work via third party cookies, they aren’t making them magically just work, they are introducing a new way of doing those thing that isn’t cookies, because the majority of people think cookies = bad so removing cookies is good. So they look like the good guys.
All the same things that happen now in relation to tracking will still happen, they will just be implemented in a different way.
You can already disable third party cookies in most browsers so this is not something to help users, it’s to help ad companies (eg. Google) get around people disabling third party cookies.
Most (probably almost all) websites already work fine without third party cookies. They are not usually required for the functionality of the site, although for some sites if they lose their ad revenue then they might be unviable and their site goes away and you can’t use it anymore.
Sick of being tracked? Disconnect ;). Or…… possible software idea….. create a … cookie spoofer?
Colorado is quickly turning into California 2.0.
Google is > 50+ market share. They don't need cookies.
It's absolutely remarkable how dropping "Don't be evil" pretty much immediately meant implicitly becoming "Do Evil, but don't get caught". It's like, capitalism without restrictions is effectively just racketeering. A scamconomy.
TBH dropping the phrase really means they just dropped the pretense.
@@joelv4495 True. Once Google saw all of the money it could make by being evil it was already enthusiastically doing sketchy things behind the scenes.
Remember when it was exposed that some of their user privacy settings were a dead end and really didn't do anything?
Didn't they change it to "Do the right thing"?
I mean.... now they, supposedly, can't be passive now.