Skip Navigation
Technology @lemmy.world
RedFox @infosec.pub

Google Pulls the Plug: The End of Third-Party Cookies and What it Means | TWiT.TV

This episode of Security Now covered Google's plan to deprecate third party cookies and the reaction from advertising organizations and websites.

The articles and the opinions of the show hosts are that it may have negative or unintended consequences as rather than relying on Google's proposed ad selection scheme being run on the client side (hiding information from the advertiser), instead they are demanding first party information from the sites regarding their user's identification.

The article predicts that rather than privacy increasing, a majority of websites may demand user registration so they can collect personal details and force user consent to provide that data to advertisers.

What's your opinion of website advertising, privacy, and data collection?

  • Would you refuse to visit websites that force registration even if the account is free?
  • What's all the fuss about, you don't care?
  • Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?
  • Would this limit your visiting of websites to only a narrow few you are willing to trade personal details for?
  • Is this a bad thing for the internet experience as whole, or just another progression of technology?
  • Is this no different from using any other technology platform that's free (If it's free, you're the product)?
  • Should website owners just accept a lower revenue model and adapt their business, rather than seeking higher / unfair revenues from privacy invasive practices of the past?
129 comments

  • This is great news! But I'm sure Google is probably using it as a way to get all the cookies for themselves and then sell that data to these companies.

    The companies will still get their data but they'll have to buy it from Google only as Google will probably be considered a 1st party cookie vendor.

    If any site wants me to sign up to use it, I'll just not use it. No big deal.

  • posted February 13 2024

    "Google recently announced that its dominant Chrome browser will phase out support for third-party cookies by the end of 2023"

    "AI Written Human Edited"

    We can tell

  • Would you refuse to visit websites that force registration even if the account is free?

    I already generally do.

    What’s all the fuss about, you don’t care?

    I honestly don't much care, but that's because western civilization is circling the drain, warped and undermined at every turn by wealthy and powerful psychopaths, and it's just not worth it to care, since there's absolutely nothing I can do to stop them

    Is advertising a necessary evil in fair trade for content?

    Some sort of revenue stream is potentially necessary, but that's the extent of it. Advertising is just one revenue stream, and even if we limit the choices to that, there are still many different ways it could be implemented.

    The specific forms of advertising to which we're subjected on the internet are very much not necessary. And they don't exist as they do because the costs of serving content require that much revenue - they exist as they do to pay for corporate bloat - ludicrously expensive real estate and facilities and grotesquely inflated salaries for mostly useless executive shitheads.

    Would this limit your visiting of websites to only a narrow few you are willing to trade personal details for?

    Again, that's what I already do, so it would just add more sites to those I won't visit.

    Is this a bad thing for the internet experience as whole, or just another progression of technology?

    At this point, the two are almost always one and the same. Internet technology is primarily harnessed to the goal of maximizing income for the well-positioned few, and all other considerations are secondary.

    Is this no different from using any other technology platform that’s free (If it’s free, you’re the product)?

    This is cynically amusing on Lemmy.

    Should website owners just accept a lower revenue model and adapt their business, rather than seeking higher / unfair revenues from privacy invasive practices of the past?

    Of course they should, but they won't, because they're psychopaths. They'll never give up any of their grotesque and destructive privilege, even if that means that they ultimately destroy the host on which they're parasites.

  • I am not sure if advertising is a necessary evil. I guess I do not like being sold something constantly, and when I am in the market for anything, I will expose myself to advertising willingly, but it is, in way, a matter of consent. I can imagine that there is also people who like being sold things unsolicited, you know, they might say that they like discovering new products through advertisements.

    • people who like being sold things unsolicited...discovering new products...

      That is a good point, I can definitely understand.

      I do not like being sold something constantly

      I must agree.

      A short version rant about advertising: In my opinion, it causes either mental exhaustion or prevents people from reflecting. It's a constant and invasive distraction, robbing people of peace.

      Why? Thinking of all the ways you can't go ten minutes without seeing ads, unless you're intentional. They started putting screens in gas pumps! Billboards on the roads, some that are giant LED screens (which I thought should be illegal), ads all over buildings, buses, in the subway, on the bench.

      Back to websites: I personally think in their current form, they're so distracting, they're unreadable. I refuse to visit websites that require registration, and also leave if I can't get the simple/reader mode/ on edge/chrome. At least that way, its forced darkmode, and eliminates all the ads, social media links, everything but words. I can deal with some of the pictures not being shown. I wish I could find a browser that only displays websites in that stripped down mode.

       

    • Personally, while I don't mind being advertised to when I'm specifically looking for something, marketing materials aren't particularly useful about informing me whether something will be a good purchase. Marketing is pretty much just a big conflict of interest, where unethical ones will sometimes just outright lie about their product, and even the ethical ones will usually try to avoid talking about the negatives.

      Review sites can be ok, but marketers game those, too, so it's hard to tell if a review is genuine or not (though the ones who aren't as good at it don't hide that their descriptions are basically just marketing copy).

      Currently, I seek out negative customer reviews. Those can also be gamed, but attention mostly gets put towards the positive ones, so if the negative reviews are mostly about the delivery going badly, stuff that I don't care about, or very over the top about how horrible the product is, they can often be dismissed.

      I think that the market is primed for a store that curates their products and is willing to tell shitty manufacturers to fuck off instead of taking kickbacks or ignoring bad products because they get a cut either way. A store whose goal isn't to just sell you something but to do everything they can to ensure you won't buy something you won't like.

129 comments