Technology @lemmy.ml Karna @lemmy.ml 7mo ago

Google Chrome is no longer 'deprecating third-party cookies'

9to5google.com Google Chrome is no longer 'deprecating third-party cookies'

In a rather stark turnaround, Google is no longer ending support for third-party cookies in its Chrome browser...

Android @lemmy.world GreenEngineering3475 @lemmy.world 7mo ago

9to5google.com /2024/07/22/google-chrome-third-party-cookies-2/

63 1

49 comments

This is your daily reminder that Firefox and its derivatives exist and should be used wherever possible if you care about Google not having a monopoly over the internet. There's even a Firefox-based version of Discord called Datcord.
- Absolutely. If you think you can switch when chrome will be completely hostile it will be too late.
  
  The reason they are trying those things in chrome is because the market share of Firefox is currently low. They are counting that you won't have the option to run Firefox anymore, because sites will stop supporting it. Don't let that happen.
  
  Also, Firefox is in a tough situation where they have to purposefully shoot themselves in the foot, because their builtin tracking protection means Firefox usually doesn't show up in a lot of browser usage stats.
  
  Too late. Lumen5 crashes on Firefox. Google Cloud Console barely loads. I was a Firefox user for YEARS but finally had to uninstall this week. The amount of "Firefox is not supported" warnings and weird issues I was running into every day was getting a tad ridiculous.
- Firefox is the only reasonable alternative to the Chrome monopoly right now, yes, but they too are going bad, we need more alternatives
  
  Ladybird isn't ready yet but one to keep an eye on.
- Note: "I don't use Discord/Datcord anymore because of their terrible TOS which Datcord can't protect you from."
- Thanks I didn't know about Datcord
- Firefox is funded by Google and Meta, but its still better than being directly made by Google. There isn't a single good browser right now.
- I doubt Firefox will deprecate third-party cookies is Chrome won't. And now Firefox has included literally ad tracking component into the browser and enabled it for all users by default.
  
  Firefox's stance on privacy, like Apple's, is to some extent branding. Arguably it always was. You should still use Firefox (or any other third party browser) if it works for you. Ecosystem diversity matters.
  
  Firefox has been blocking third-party cookies since 2019: https://venturebeat.com/business/firefox-enhanced-tracking-protection-blocks-third-party-cookies-by-default/
  
  Apple has been blocking third-party cookies since 2020: https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/24/21192830/apple-safari-intelligent-tracking-privacy-full-third-party-cookie-blocking
  
  It's only Chrome and its derivatives that don't do this.
  
  facepalm it's not an "ad tracking component", it's a test of a new API that, if adopted, will let sites opt in to a much less invasive anonymized system for evaluating the effectiveness of their ads, instead of the current crazy amount of personal data they scrape. The data is anonymized in a double blind scheme, and it's already way less data than every ad is grabbing.
- I just uninstalled Firefox yesterday after it came out that they are collecting user data by default. If I'm going to be tracked either way, I might as well use the browser that's actually supported on sites I use so I don't have to keep ignoring the "Firefox is not supported and some features may not work" warnings 5x a day.
  
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40974112
  
  I guess some people enjoy ads
- Nope, not going to use anything from Mozilla. They don't even deserve the minuscule market share they have right now. I want them to disappear.
  
  I want them to disappear.
  
  So you want Google to have a true monopoly over the browser market?
  
  shit like this makes me annoyed I joined an instance without down voting
  
  Then use a fork.
They probably couldn't get google drive to work without 3rd party cookies.
Google worked on Privacy Sandbox/Topics API/FLoC for at least five years, and it couldn't get something that advertisers, regulators, and users could all agree on, so it's just falling back to the thing that worked (but has next to zero privacy protections). Sigh.
- Yeah, this is a loss for user privacy.
  
  Also a reminder that accepting an alternative tracking method is likely to just end up with 2 different ways to track you rather than one slightly less invasive one.
- Google never had any intention whatsoever of prioritising your privacy over their advertising revenue. This technology was 100% designed to shut other operators out of the tracking and advertising market and 0% to reduce their ability to track you and advertise to you. Never in a million years were they going to spend a lot of time, effort and money destroying the source of their money. Hobble competitors, yes. Hobble themselves? Never. Not even a little bit.

49 comments