this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
134 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

68772 readers
4707 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] oktoberpaard@feddit.nl 214 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’m pretty sure that Chrome’s alternative is designed by Google to track you in a way that’s harder to block and gives them more control over the advertising market by forcing advertisers to play along and use their method instead of collecting your data directly. Sure, it’s more private, but it’s still tracking you.

Firefox, on the other hand, is focusing on completely blocking cross-site tracking. They have no incentive to completely block 3rd party cookies as long as there is also a legitimate use case for them, but I guess they will eventually also block them if Chrome is successful in forcing websites to stop relying on them for core functionality.

[–] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not sure how Chrome's alternatives for providing relevant ads are harder to block when you can just turn them off (and examine the data it's collected) in the settings. These systems are what Chrome is able to do at the moment to work towards blocking third party cookies. They do have an incentive to make something that they know works well for them though, I'll give you that.

[–] le_saucisson_masquay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

when you can just turn them off (and examine the data it’s collected) in the settings

Is that part of the chromium engine which is open source or is it closed source ? Because if that part of the code is not visible it doesn't matter what Google tells you.

[–] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's part of the open source chromium engine.

Here's how it implements some of the privacy sandbox stuff for example: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/refs/heads/main/components/privacy_sandbox/

and here's some of the Topics API stuff: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/refs/heads/main/components/browsing_topics/

Theoretically they could still inject malicious code even if the stuff in the chromium source code looks fine. Given they got sued for their servers still tracking you while Chrome was in Incognito mode (even with the warning every time you open Incognito mode), I'd imagine any injection of code like that would result in another lawsuit (or several). At some point you either have to trust that Google is implementing things how they say they are in the code that they put out or just use a different browser.

[–] le_saucisson_masquay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I checked your link but as most people I'm not programmer, so we can't check or even remotely understand what Google engineers does. On the other hand, what common people can understand is 'follow the money ́. Google makes most of its money on selling personalized ads, the more data they get on you the higher advertiser will bid.

It would make absolutely no sense, financially, for Google to reduce it's tracking ability and let the user decide which ad they want to see or not.

And at the end Google is a business, money goes in, more money goes out. They could be doing what they claim to do right now, only to change in 2 years when all third party advertiser are bankrupt because they can't use cookies anymore. That's another possibility.

[–] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The way I see it, Google knows that changes are coming to the advertising industry, either through regulations or just public opinion. By doing this now, they can try to get ahead of those changes/criticisms while controlling what systems their advertising competitors will have to operate under. I don't doubt that Google will still have enough data to do relevant advertising, either with the data from these new systems in the browser or the first-party data they have on people through their sites.

[–] TheBlackLounge@lemm.ee 125 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Firefox blocks known trackers and isolates third party cookies per site. They do have legitimate uses, and not every site has made the switch to modern tech that could replace it.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/blog/goodbye-third-party-cookies/

[–] GigglyBobble@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

That's the superior approach and Firefox introduced it far earlier than Google addressed the problem.

Why OP is blindly arguing in that corp's favor and ignoring all the reasoning provided here, is beyond me. Shilling?

[–] rambaroo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah my company uses them for integrating some of our apps together. They aren't used for tracking at all, and we'd be up shits creek if they were, because our (corporate) customers audit that sort of thing.

Because of Google we've had to create an alternative solution which has taken years to develop and is only getting deployed now. Those fuckers have way too much power over the Internet.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 88 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There's a check box in FF settings to block all third party cookies.

You should probably educate yourself before making inaccurate claims.

[–] lengau@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago

The option to disable third party cookies has been in pretty much every browser (Chrome included) for decades. OP is talking about Google's move to make it the default.

[–] Pantherina@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Bronco1676@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago

No because some pages might break

[–] Overspark@feddit.nl 45 points 1 year ago

Firefox has been able to block all third-party / cross-site cookies for ages. It's just not the default because it breaks some sites. But dive into the settings and you can easily set it to block all cross-site cookies, or even all cookies if you prefer.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

I’m confused. Didn’t this start at the beginning of last year?

https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/02/23/total-cookie-protection/

[–] prex@aussie.zone 16 points 1 year ago

It's been an option for as long as I can remember. I suppose they are leaving the default until websites adapt to chromes changes.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They will likely remove them soon I suppose. And it's easier to leave the option available in case it breaks someone's use-case until they fix it.

[–] 5opn0o30@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think they took a different approach and block known trackers but not all cookies.

[–] King@lemy.lol 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Blocking third-party cookies is a more effective way to protect user privacy than blocking tracking cookies, because third-party cookies can be used to track users across multiple websites.

[–] CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, but known 3rd party tracking cookies are already blocked. It's not like these tracking sites pop up every day, but the list is updated when new ones are found. Meanwhile, 3rd party cookies for legitimate uses are allowed.

Whereas Google just blocked them all with no regard to their purpose.

You can also choose to block all 3rd party cookies in Firefox, although it might break certain sites. And you can also keep 3rd party cookies (that are more functional than tracking) but maintain a different copy for each website so they aren't effective at tracking you.

Firefox gives you a lot of choice.

[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Mine has been blocking for years now. It's already there, just not on by default. It does break some sites so am assuming that's the reason. I just got use to the fact some sites will stop working and moved on.