[superfrank]

I know a lot of people don't like the Topics API and FLoC (which I believe is dead now, but was kind of the MVP for Topics) and I'm not saying it's perfect, but from everything I've read on it, it seems like a massive improvement over third party cookies.

Am I wrong in thinking this way?

I realize there are plenty of people out there who just don't want to be tracked at all, but I don't think that option was really ever on the table for Chrome users. To me this seems like a step in the right direction.

If there's anyone who can explain the downsides of this new API and has an alternative other than "don't track me" I would honestly love to hear it. I'm sure there are some, but I'm struggling to think of them.

[TechBro8615]

Do you work at Google? The reason I ask is because I fail to understand how the premise of "topics" or "floc," or whatever you want to call it, benefits anyone other than Google shareholders and employees. Browsers don't need to be advertising machines, and the idea that somehow ads need to "work" or be "private enough" is a false premise that only exists because Google depends on tracking users so they can extract maximum prices from advertisers.

The problem is not that there's a "downside" to the feature - the problem is that it exists at all.

[superfrank]

I don't work at Google and never have. I'm just being realistic.

Companies don't make products out of the goodness of their hearts, they create products to make money. I'm not saying that's good or right, but that's just how the world is.

Google makes money off advertising and advertisers want to be able to target certain audiences. It's important to remember that you and I are not Google's customer in this case. We are the product. Advertisers are the customer. Google is going to give advertisers *something* to be able to target ads toward certain audiences because that's what Google's customers want and that's what they will pay for. If Google doesn't give that to them, they will take their business else where. We (Chrome users) have some say in the direction of the product because there's always the threat that Chrome users will leave en masse, but for the most part, our wants are secondary to the wants of the people who are directly giving Google money.

My comment is starting from the following assumption - We don't get a choice in this matter and some feature for targeted advertising is going to exist. So my question is, are there any ways in which this is worse than the current solution (third party cookies) or are there any other alternatives that would provide Google's customers (advertisers) with similar features that are invasive to Chrome users.

[drekipus]

> Companies don't make products out of the goodness of their hearts, they create products to make money.

Yes, precisely the point. This is to make money from you.

It would be much better if companies could make worthwhile services that we have a choice in supporting ( with our wallets by Buying products)

But there's a limited choice we have when chrome is defacto, from one company, that shove ads down our throats and gets paid for it.

Your grandma, mother or wife, aren't going to install adblockers. She'll get Ashley Madison ads whether she agrees to it or not, because she lingered a little too long on a erotic social media post, etc.

I think we all wish that advertising wasn't the product offered, and being gaslit into believing that other people want this.

[superfrank]

How is anything you said different than what we have right now?

The point of my post isn't that advertising is good, it's that people are making a big deal over this and I don't really understand how this is worse than what is already out there.

[TechBro8615]

This is a defeatist attitude. Just because the status quo is hostile to user privacy does not mean it has to continue to be that way. Other browsers are trying to fix the problem, while Google is trying to preserve it.

[drekipus]

I don't think there is a "big deal".

people didn't like the original version and people don't like this "new and improved" approach. it's the same as what's already out there.

Frankly i'd be more in favour of people making a bigger deal out of it.

[austhrow743]

What's already out there is largely blockable. This being baked in to the browser makes it seem like it wont be.

[fomine3]

Agree. Moreover, natural alternative is fingerprinting, that's harder to opt out than 3PC or FLoC.

[scarface_74]

> We don't get a choice in this matter and some feature for targeted advertising is going to exist

We can not use Chrome

[TechBro8615]

Ok, so what is the product in the case of Google? As a user I've been led to believe the product is Google Chrome, a web browser that can browse the open internet. But it seems like in Google's mind, the product is my attention, which they sell to advertisers on behalf of publishers who insert tracking code (ads) on their sites. So in effect, the previously open internet becomes a product belonging to Google, where every site with adsense on it may as well be a Google property, in the sense that it's Google who is the ultimate benefactor of the fact that I viewed multiple sites in its "network."

This is a fine argument when talking about walled gardens like Facebook (setting aside for a second the issue of FB tracking pixels) - the entire site is their property, and it's their right to track me within it. But what rubs me the wrong way about Google adding tracking features to Chrome, is that they're exploiting an open platform to essentially turn it into a giant walled garden. And many publishers wouldn't necessarily be okay with this, in the sense that they're helping their competitors by leaking tracking data that ultimately leads to higher priced ads on those competing websites. But they don't have a choice because Google has an advertising monopoly.

The root problem is that the leading browser is developed by the leading advertising company, even though there's no fundamental reason for the two products to be so closely coupled. As a result, malign incentives leak into the product development because unlike other browsers from companies not supported by ads, which have removed third party cookies with no adverse consequences, Chrome cannot do the same without hurting their parent business. But note how fundamentally this has no impact on the browser itself - the conundrum is an artifact of who develops the browser.

In an ideal world, a web browser would be a piece of software thats either bundled with my operating system and subsidized by hardware sales of the manufacturer (as is the case with Safari and Apple), or if I wanted an alternative, an application that I could purchase with a one time payment or even a recurring fee. I would happily support the development of the product by paying for it, as I do with many products. But it's a false dichotomy to suggest that's what the Chromium tracking code is doing - it's supporting the Google monopoly, which extends far beyond just Chrome. If Google were simply a company that offered a web browser, then none of this would be an issue - third party cookies would be gone and there would be no need to add any tracking code, because removing the cookies didn't do any material harm to their business. But alas that's not the case, and we the users are left holding the bag and paying for it by letting Google and advertisers follow us around the internet.

[superfrank]

> So in effect, the previously open internet becomes a product belonging to Google, where every site with adsense on it may as well be a Google property, in the sense that it's Google who is the ultimate benefactor of the fact that I viewed multiple sites in its "network."

You're saying this like it hasn't already happened. We're already long past this point because of third party cookies and browser fingerprinting. Because of third party cookies, not only can Google do this (and they have), Facebook, Amazon, and really anyone with enough money and incentive to get their scripts added to other sites can do this.

Everything you're talking about in your response seems to assume that we're living in this world where, right now, no one can track your activity once you leave their specific site and Google adding the Topics API will be some watershed moment. It's not, we're already there and we have been for almost a decade.

The entire point of my original question was how is what Google is proposing worse than what is out there now. Since you seem to keep ignoring what is possible right now through third party cookies, I think I'm done with this discussion.

[TechBro8615]

It has already happened! Exactly. But while other browser vendors are taking measures to "put the genie back in the bottle," like removing third party tracking cookies, enabling declarative native content blockers, prominently displaying which "trackers" you've been exposed to, etc. - Google is an outlier, in that it's finding ways to circumvent the privacy preserving measures introduced by other browsers, while still disingenuously claiming its new "privacy preserving" (oxymoron) tracking technology aligns with the "spirit" of the changes.

So yes, it's "already like that." But it doesn't have to be. That's why browsers are differentiating themselves by actually preserving user privacy, by declaring war on hostile features like third party cookies, and empowering the user with tools for monitoring and customizing content blockers. It's only Google that is going out of their way to introduce unnecessary complexity under the guise of "preserving privacy" - because they've been caught with their pants down tracking you, and now they want to gaslight you into thinking they're wearing pants - preserving your privacy - when in reality their entire narrative is built on a false premise that tracking is necessary, and if only it can be done "privately enough," then not only should you be okay with it but Google should be commended for its efforts to protect your privacy!

It's all a bit rich, and reminds me of Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal. Somehow they were able to convince the media that Cambridge Analytica was the bad guy, even though they never did anything that wasn't explicitly documented with sample code in the Facebook API docs. Facebook created a platform that is almost by definition designed for relinquishing your privacy (by asking you to publish your personal data to the internet), and then tried to retroactively define its boundaries by insisting there is some notion of "published to your 1000+ friends, but still private." In reality they created the walled garden, collected all your data within it, and then gave developers tools to read the data they collected. And when caught with their pants down, they insisted the problem was that the rules weren't "private enough" - when in reality the problem was that Facebook had any of this data in the first place. The same applies here to Google. The question is not how the tracking "works," but rather why the tracking exists.

[peter422]

I don’t work at Google and don’t use ad blockers because I want the sites I visit to get paid.

Anyways, all things being equal, I’d prefer more relevant ads.

[userbinator]

Drink verification can.

[type0]

How about getting malware through ad networks?

[Natuerich]

While Google does has an interest in people having a secure tool to use their services, the fundamental way Google is as accessable to everyone as it is is because of ads

It's shitty.

Now Google makes this shitty existing architecture better.

At least I agree to the op and think this is better.

[chrismorgan]

“Topics API or third-party cookies” kinda goes beyond being a false dichotomy to being a blatant lie. The conflict of interest demonstrates how Google is unfit as the custodian of a leading browser. This is a single-vendor thing to bolster their own interests and which they can only do because they’re a leading advertising company, and which no one else supports in any way.

Firefox and Safari have already stopped supporting third-party cookies, and nothing bad happened.

(There are a few cases here and there of legitimate systems breaking due to relying on third-party cookies for things like login, and these have broken in Firefox and Safari, but they’ll break in Chromium too when it kills off third-party cookies, and the Topics API is completely irrelevant to these cases, being exclusively about advertising interests, so these cases aren’t part of the “third-party cookies or Topics API” deceit.)

Note also how Apple and Mozilla have both taken negative positions on the Topics API: it’s extremely unlikely either’s browser engine will ever support it, making the falseness of the dichotomy even clearer.

Useful further reading, identifying various concrete problems with the Topics API (if “but why should it even exist at all?” wasn’t enough):

https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/111

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/622

https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/726

[paulryanrogers]

> Firefox and Safari have already stopped supporting third-party cookies, and nothing bad happened.

When did Firefox stop accepting 3P cookies by default? I thought that was only in private mode.

[chrismorgan]

The final stage of the rollout happened a few months ago: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/firefox-rolls-out-total-.... The last section in that article also documents the history.

(This is also relevant in any antitrust considerations for Google, as noted in the jsnell subthread here—almost all of that stuff was in early 2021, when Google was somewhere in the middle of the pack in their proposals and suggested timeline; whereas if they released it now, they’d be aligning with everyone else. Google have made some noise about delays being for the sake of advertisers at least in part, but I believe that for all the other browsers, their delays have been largely or entirely about avoiding or minimising breaking websites that depended on third-party cookies for functionality, mostly legitimately.)

[paulryanrogers]

So this doesn't disable 3P cookies entirely. Though it is a clever compromise.

[chrismorgan]

On reviewing that article, I’m actually not certain what the situation is. It seems to suggest that it’s just isolating third-party cookies, but my understanding is that that’s roughly what they shifted to (for at least new users, and maybe that’s the key) a couple of years back. In at least Nightly, when I checked a month or two back, the default Enhanced Tracking Protection mode was Standard mode, which says that it blocks “Cross-site cookies in all windows”—not cross-site tracking cookies, but all third-party cookies.

I’m not sure why there’s so much obscuration around this stuff. I wish there was a caniuse entry on third-party cookies that identified matters clearly.

[superfrank]

> “Topics API or third-party cookies” kinda goes beyond being a false dichotomy to being a blatant lie.

From my original post:

> If there's anyone who [...] has an alternative other than "don't track me" I would honestly love to hear it. I'm sure there are some, but I'm struggling to think of them.

Not only did I never say that the only options were "Topics API or third-party cookies", I explicitly said that I'm sure there were other options, but that I just didn't know what they were.

[candiddevmike]

Why have either? What _user_ wants this? I really struggle to find people that want to be tracked, even anonymously, that have no ties to said tracking companies.

[jsnell]

At least the EU [0], UK [1] and two different US government entities [2][3] have all made it clear that Chrome can't disable 3rd party cookies without a replacement that keeps (non-Google) ad networks competitive. The theory seems to be that it would be anti-competitive, because Google doesn't actually need either 3p cookies or a replacement mechanism while ad networks do.

So unfortunately the "neither" choice is not an option here.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/eu-antitrust-reg...

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-keep-close-eye-on-...

[2] https://www.engadget.com/google-antitrust-doj-cookies-privac...

[3] https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/16/22333848/google-antitrust...

[chrismorgan]

I’m not deeply familiar with things, but I don’t think that stuff should be relevant: if Google is getting information that other ad networks can’t (and I have no real idea about this), that’s a problem, and it’s unfair advantage and anticompetitive behaviour even while third-party cookies are a thing—just perhaps less extreme than after third-party cookies are removed. But any probes then should be more along the lines of “why is google.com privileged” rather than “Google must add the Topics API before removing third-party cookies”.

Safari and Firefox already disabled third-party cookies a while back. There’s no problem with that, right?

[jsnell]

You entire premise is flawed since google.com is not privileged in this. It has exactly the same capabilities of setting first-party cookies as every domain.

"But Apple's and Mozilla's moms let them disable third-party cookies" isn't likely to be a winning argument in court when the major Western competition authorities threatened you in advance with anti-trust action.

[chrismorgan]

If google.com isn’t using any privileged position (I was guessing they were, from your comment), then where’s the problem? There’s no antitrust: third-party cookies are a privacy problem, and the browser industry has unanimously decided to remove them, and in fact everyone else has already removed them—Google is last here. The fact that one of the browser providers (and yes, maker of the biggest one) happens to be an advertising company should then be irrelevant—either Google is simply doing things better than everyone else in the advertising industry, or they’re behaving anticompetitively in some other way. But I don’t see how this could legitimately be tied to removing third-party cookies.

[jsnell]

Look, I really don't know what to say here.

I agree that what you say should be true. But it is not, and I've already posted the sources to show it in my first message in the thread. Do you think the sources are fake? Or do you think that all those regulators are just joking around, and when Google does something they expressely forbid, it'll just be laughed off?

[xg15]

As a matter of fact, Google domains do have (or at least used to have) privileged treatment in Chrome: There are special request headers that Chrome automatically includes in requests to Google-owned domains - and only those. [1]

But even if not, Chrome makes all kinds of API calls to the Google backend, independently of browsing. It would be trivial to e.g. upload the browsing history there and associate it with the user's Google account.

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/05/google_chrome_id_numb...

[rcme]

I think the argument is that disabling 3rd party cookies in Chrome would not be anti-competitive is Google didn't collect any information about Chrome users.

[xg15]

I wonder how Topics could change that reasoning.

The Topics API is intentionally much less capable than 3rd party cookies. So if Google phased out 3rd party cookies and replaced them with Topics, the abilities of non-google ad networks would already be curtailed. Meanwhile, the same restriction doesn't apply to Google as they can just have the browser track users in much the same way as 3rd party cookies used to do.

So even with Topics, there would be a power imbalance between Google and other ad networks.

[cma]

Chrome already lets you delete cookies or browse in incognito mode, wouldn't the same argument mean they couldn't provide that? Disabling third-party cookies could be a switch in the settings that the user chose, like those.

[notatoad]

do users want it? no. do users not want it? also, for the most part, no. people don't care about this nearly as much as you want them to.

fully informed and knowledgeable people can make a decision that they don't really mind if advertisers know a bit about them. especially when it's as benign as knowing what general topics they might be interested in.

[TechBro8615]

This reads like "only tell people who ask, exploit those we can get away with, and when they start to catch onto our schemes, obfuscate the system by adding new complexity and telling them it's for their own good, then repeat."

[superfrank]

> What _user_ wants this?

You're asking the wrong question. Chrome users are the product not the customer. Google cares about Chrome users in the same way a farmers care about their cows that they are raising to be slaughtered.

Asking Chrome users if they want to be tracked is like asking cows if they want to live their lives in a fenced in enclosure (or worse). It doesn't really matter what they want unless not doing what they want affects the bottom line (and even then, there are trade offs).

The correct question to be asking is "Which of Google's customers (the people paying for ads) want this?" and the answers seems to be most, if not all, of them.

[tomComb]

I want to use internet services that have no paywall. I want them to get paid, with a minimum of ads. And I prefer ads that might be relevant to me, and which might provide value even for small advertisers (as opposed to brand advertising).

That all requires data collection and that’s ok with me as long as they handle it responsibly (oddly the ones that handle users data responsibly – never selling or leaking yet - seem to be the most hated).

I have no ties to said tracking companies, or any other skin in this game.

[rurp]

It's fine if you want to opt into any tracking info you want. The issue is that it should be opt in and a clear choice, not obfuscated in the background or framed as if it's necessary for basic services to work.

[candiddevmike]

Do you think that ads will provide them with enough revenue? Based on the current status-quo, ad-supported only services seem to be waning. Businesses would much prefer paying customers vs ad-supported, I think.

[SllX]

If that’s a choice you get to make without that choice being forced upon me because I clicked a link, great! We’re both happy.

I don’t mind a consent wall, or a paywall, but what I do mind is that the second I click a link, the page is already trying to turn my user agent against me to glean as much information about me as possible.

[SllX]

> If there's anyone who can explain the downsides of this new API and has an alternative other than "don't track me" I would honestly love to hear it.

“Don’t track me” should be sufficient.

[summerlight]

And surprising to many ordinary HN readers, it is actually better for Google to deprecate 3p cookie as early as possible since the digital ads market competes on finite budget and whenever something uncertain happens it almost always works in a way that benefits big, established players. Of course other small players definitely understand this and has approached to competition regulation entities so Google cannot simply get rid of 3rd party cookies and kick the ladder... Advertising is an extremely optimized business sector and its landscape is not that simple; no one is going to get everything they want.

[illiac786]

The other answers seem to completely miss your point. You're not asking "is this good" you're asking " is it less worse than status quo".

I think it's a fair question.

From my non-expert point of view it's actually less bad, but I use Firefox, with unlock and some fingerprinting blockers so I'm certainly not the target demographic.

What I wish would be possible is to forbid websites to break functionality of 3rd party cookies are not enabled...

[tomjen3]

I cannot understand the problem in just showing ads based on the content of the website I am visiting. You don't need to spy on me to realise that I am interested in needlework if I am on a site called threadsandneedles.com

Meanwhile the ads that do track me are annoying as hell and frequently show shit I am not the least interested in (Facebook knows I work in IT, why my timeline isn't full of cool as hell gadgets I will never know).

[VPenkov]

> To me this seems like a step in the right direction

This implies that there are more steps in that direction.

Can you think of any follow-up steps that are in favor of the user? Or do you think it's more realistic that advertisers regain their former superpowers?

I don't mean to nitpick your phrasing, I'd like to understand if there's some long-term benefit to users that I don't see.

[dahwolf]

The alternative is context-sensitive ads based on surrounding context.

[scarface_74]

> If there's anyone who can explain the downsides of this new API and has an alternative other than "don't track me"

Exactly what’s wrong with that?