• mke@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    All the more reason to use Firefox with uBlock Origin if you can, which despite concerns regarding Mozilla are still much more likely to align with users’ best interests and help you avoid being tracked all over the web.

    Instead of deprecating third-party cookies, we would introduce a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing, and they’d be able to adjust that choice at any time.

    What does this even mean, Google?

    • sfxrlz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Enshittification is a pattern where online services and products experience a decline in quality over time. It is observed as platforms transition through several stages: initially offering high-quality services to attract users, then shifting to favor business customers to increase profitability, and finally focusing on maximizing profits for shareholders at the expense of both users and business customers. #

      • mke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Edited to clarify which one I was referring to.

        The definition of issue here changes significantly from person to person, from some disliking Firefox’s visual design to others criticizing business and technical decisions by Mozilla.

        Honestly, there’s nothing I feel like bringing up and starting another discussion over. I mostly added that to stop certain folks from cleverly answering “but what about <issue>? Mozilla isn’t a saint!” As though that wasn’t taken into account from the start.

  • dinckel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    5 months ago

    Remember when cookies were used for session data, and local preferences? Good times

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m going to wager that killing cookies was going to kneecap their ad business significantly, so they got cold feet and are looking for a scapegoat.

    • Spotlight7573@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      They definitely knew it would impact their ad business but I think what did it was the competition authorities saying they couldn’t do it to their competitors either, even if they were willing to take the hit on their own services.

      Impact on their business (bold added): https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/15189422

      • Programmatic revenue impact without Privacy Sandbox: By comparing the control 2 arm to the control 1 arm, we observed that removing third-party cookies without enabling Privacy Sandbox led to -34% programmatic revenue for publishers on Google Ad Manager and -21% programmatic revenue for publishers on Google AdSense.
      • Programmatic revenue impact with Privacy Sandbox: By comparing the treatment arm to control 1 arm, we observed that removing third-party cookies while enabling the Privacy Sandbox APIs led to -20% and -18% programmatic revenue for Google Ad Manager and Google AdSense publishers, respectively.
  • 0oWow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    So they get to keep their Ad Privacy malware and cookies. Sounds like that was their endgame.