224
That's a good reminder that Google doesn't make anything for you.
Google said it decided to abandon the plan after considering the impact of the changes on publishers, advertisers and “everyone involved in online advertising.”
This is like a landlord scrapping plans to add curtains or blinds after considering the impact on peeping Toms and forgoing a lock on the back door after consulting with burglars.
Back in my day, the Internet was a testament to human ingenuity, determination and spirit, as noteworthy as the Manhatten project or the pyramids, not just synonym for one of Google's crappy products that will inevitably end up in the Google graveyard.
I got my first email address in '97. Still use it today.
Back then the net was incredible. You could find cool groups to join and discover stuff you never knew before. I miss that.
Remember what the manhatan project was used for? Same
This is Google's way of throwing a fit. They've been thwarted at every attempt to replace cookies with something WAY MORE creepy and WORSE by privacy advocates.
They're quickly realizing that people will not give advertisers free reign anymore.
No, please tell me more about how my privacy will affect advertisers.
I'm a frontend focused SWE. I suspect the main reason this was abandoned is because it caused technical hell. This has been enabled in incognito mode for a while and has caused a lot of issues with things like fetching profile pictures. For example, if you were on a google.com page that used images hosted on gstatic, they would fail to load because gstatic is "technically" a third party, even though both are Google owned. There are sorta ways around it but the nature of the Internet makes it stupidly annoyingly difficult and causes a lot of stuff to break.
Good idea on paper, but really difficult to implement without breaking the Internet.
Well, using gstatic.com instead of something like static.google.com has always been a stupid idea.
That's just one example, the Internet is littered with similar things
I was thinking more trying to avoid lawsuits based on further cementing their monopoly in adspace.
Being the world's leading advertiser and the only browser 90% of people use gives them way too much control. There's no path to privacy with chrome that doesn't end with Google as the sole gatekeeper. I mean, they already are the gatekeeper, but the current rate of lawsuits seems like an acceptable cost of doing business.
Dafuq you talking about? I've been blocking 3rd party cookies for a year without noticing any issue. Have I been missing a chunk of internet?
Way to go completely missing the point, Associated Press.
You're supposed to be neutral, yet this is the biggest load of corporate cock gargling I've ever read
Edit: for context, what they were pushing as a replacement was way worse
Totally agree. There's a much more thorough article on this here: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2024/07/22/shock-decision-google-abandons-third-party-cookie-deprecation-plans
But, Google promised us!
I am shocked.
does it even matter, how many people are there who care about cookies and use chrome
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
224 points (99.6% liked)
News
23424 readers
1521 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS