[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.