[tristor]

Sounds like a great reason for everyone to stop using Chrome. This is a capability that's been in Firefox and Safari for awhile now.

We're getting back to a point where the dominant browser is focused on rent-extraction over user-focused design and features, and alternatives are superior in pretty much every way other than bug-compat with the dominant browser (e.g. same thing we had in the IE6 days).

There's no reason anyone who's technically inclined should be using Chrome as a daily-driver at this point. Their interference in ad-blocker extensions should have been enough, this should be the nail in the coffin.

[bootlooped]

Chrome still lets you block third party cookies. Not with an extension or some low level tweak; it's just in the settings.

[koolba]

Is there a use case for third party cookies outside of ad tracking? I’ve had it disabled for years and don’t recall it breaking any website I actually care to use.

[bootlooped]

Apparently certain workflows in Okta would be hampered or prevented if third cookies were totally blocked.

https://support.okta.com/help/s/article/FAQ-How-Blocking-Thi...

[jefftk]

Once case is iframing a site where people will get logged-in behavior without requiring them to log in to each site individually. For example, an embedded video player that wants to disable ads for subscribers or a micropayments service that needs to recognize which account to charge.

(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself)

[dehrmann]

They're used for fraud prevention. How you're tracked is similar to ads, but the end goal isn't targeting ads better, it's preventing chargebacks.

[cptskippy]

A lot of older SSO technology like Gigya use 3rd Party Cookies. They've had a hell of a time on Apple devices.

[jackson1442]

I had to enable third party cookies to log into Pearson’s online learning garbage. It appears the use case here is standing up poorly designed websites.

[nr2x]

Basically it’s deprecated technology, anybody using for “legit” reasons needs to migrate to a new solution anyway.

[echelon]

It shouldn't be a setting.

Requiring opt-out (hidden at that!) is statistically the same as not supporting it. Most users will not know about this or be technically inclined enough to change it.

Google knows this. Some analyst or PM modeled it.

edit: Hello Google employees downvoting me. I'm confident nobody else on the planet wants this the way you do. You can censor me, an individual voice. But the world doesn't like or need this, and they're waking up. As are our legislators. Change your behavior and innovate in other areas that benefit society. (There are so many - nearly limitless!) The clock is ticking. They're building the antitrust cases as we speak, and this is the road you're actively choosing to go down. Not a good look, not the best step forward. I really do want the Google of 2005 to succeed; all of this has just been a misstep. Microsoft in 2021 is so much better than Microsoft of years past. Google could do the same. Don't be evil.

[echelon]

Google should be barred from making a web browser. The DOJ should come down hard on this behavior.

Not only is this monopolistic, but it's destroying the web and turning our privacy situation into a trash fire.

They're making this 3rd party cookie decision at the behest of their adsense unit, and it's decisions like these that are infectious across product boundaries. AMP, no URL, increasingly unilateral and opaque HTML standards that serve to push ads, ...

Google has been so lazy at innovation in other areas that they can't afford to lose Chrome. It's a key part of their fragile moat. They'll defend it to the death.

Nevertheless, these two products should not be the same company.

I want Google to succeed, but not like this.

[dna_polymerase]

You could argue that there are more jobs on the line if they remove support than leaving it as is. AdTech is huge. Now go and tell any government entity about coming down "hard on this behavior".

[burnished]

The role of government isn't to support whichever industry is currently employing a lot of people and ignore everything else. I know it sounds a little insane, but I think the rule of law and our moral center is more on the ticket.

[echelon]

Ignore the "adtech is a big business" issue.

Should a company with the world's largest advertising and tracking business be in charge of 65% of the web?

Should they be able to unilaterally set standards?

Should they be allowed to delay rollout of consumer protections to defend their ad unit?

This alone poses an enormous problem.

[friendzis]

Cocaine is not a small business either, but we do crack down on it. How sure are you that adtech is a net positive for society?