[HN Gopher] Google's approach to replacing the cookie is drawing...
___________________________________________________________________
Google's approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust
scrutiny
Author : Manheim
Score : 31 points
Date : 2021-02-03 20:51 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (digiday.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (digiday.com)
| kevingadd wrote:
| Aside from the parties and parades that would be thrown over the
| removal of third-party cookies (were we not in a no-parties-
| allowed situation in 2021), it does seem a little troubling that
| they appear to be repeating the AMP strategy here 1:1, with an
| "open initiative" to replace cookies with something that is
| clearly owned and operated by Google for their interests with
| industry participation instead of an actual collaborative effort.
|
| On the other hand, who would they collaborate with? Mozilla is
| busy selling VPNs or something and Apple wants nothing to do with
| Google's ad practices. Unpleasant all around.
| derekp7 wrote:
| So if I understand this correctly, then killing off 3rd party
| cookies is anti-competitive, leaving them in is anti-privacy, and
| putting out a privacy-enhancing alternative is also anti-
| competitive. Is there anything that can be done that would
| satisfy all regulations?
|
| Also, this reminds me of a story I heard years ago, that a
| California oil change location needed to store oil above ground
| due to EPA regulations, but needed it stored underground to
| satisfy the fire department regulations. So they were constantly
| getting fined from one or the other, and had to just include
| those fines as a cost of doing business.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Perhaps it's time to recognize that the company simply need not
| exist in it's present form. If Google was required to spin off
| Chrome as an independent company, there would be no antitrust
| issue, and privacy protections Chrome made would not also
| include anti-privacy features designed to feed Google's ad
| business.
|
| The reality is, Google needs to be broken up. Every fine they
| get makes that clear.
| albertgoeswoof wrote:
| How would chrome survive as a business?
| morelisp wrote:
| It's a good analogy - like oil, companies industry-wide should
| reduce their dependence on data, and companies that still deal
| in it should be prepared to deal with heightened legal scrutiny
| and additional restrictions.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| I'm reminded of a snarky libertarian quip:
|
| > _If a big company charges more than the competition, they say
| they 're illegally abusing their monopoly._
|
| > _If a big company charges the same as the competition, they
| say it 's illegal collusion._
|
| > _If a big company charges less than the competition, they say
| it 's illegal price-dumping._
| kevingadd wrote:
| This seems like it overlooks the obvious possibility of
| things that don't fall into any of those three categories...
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| Sure, it's just a silly quip, I'm not saying it's
| watertight.
| [deleted]
| TheChaplain wrote:
| Well, Google is first and foremost an ad-company, and obviously
| any method that improves profiling for selling ads is the way to
| go.
|
| Anything else would probably not please shareholders and
| investors.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| My heart goes out to all the other adtech companies, may you all
| go fuck yourselves and find you're future endeavours in more
| ethical industries fulfilling.
| morelisp wrote:
| Things will definitely be better when Google has all the
| lobbyists, no competitors, and even more information about you.
| warent wrote:
| I don't get why this is being voted down, it's the first
| thing I thought too. Basically winning a battle to lose the
| war
|
| EDIT: anyone care to provide some rationale? Silently button-
| mashing downvote without even contributing isn't really
| helpful here
| bpodgursky wrote:
| your
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-03 23:00 UTC)