It seems unlikely, though, that advertisers will give up on the nuanced tracking they can get by other means, right? Whether to show you the $2 rip off umbrella that works for a single rainy day, or the $52 Proposal Pink ™ ultra-certified umbrella that keeps the rain off for a single rainy day.
They won’t be given the choice. The point is giving them some compromise in order to disable other tracking abilities from the browser. The big question with all of this isn’t whether it improves on the user’s privacy from the status quo. It’s what happens when Google effectively monopolizes most of the access to advertising data. I’m not crying for third party ad companies, I think there might be some unforseen consequences for users down the road.
But how so? Just that Google will stop feeding them personal data the ways it currently does? Or that Chrome would actively work to block fingerprinting and trackers the way and blockers and Firefox do?
Because fingerprinting happens whether the user’s browser ‘allows’ it or not.
Google effectively monopolizes most of the access to advertising data.
Ok, so you mean most of what most companies get is fed from Google’s tracking? So most would lose most of their data. But not that rely on Amazon/Meta/etc who are doing their own dirty work.
Or that Chrome would actively work to block fingerprinting and trackers the way and blockers and Firefox do?
I think they’ll do this.
Ok, so you mean most of what most companies get is fed from Google’s tracking?
Today everyone installs cookies and what not and tracks however they can. Once Google goes the Firefox route disabling and mitigating tracking abilities in Chrome, the only gateway to tracking data will be the data gathered by Google via Chrome and exposed via some Google-controlled API to third parties. So I think that eventually what most companies get fed by will be Google’s tracking.
So most would lose most of their data. But not that rely on Amazon/Meta/etc who are doing their own dirty work.
Yup. And probably.
So better than the status quo, unless you’re a smaller ad company.
It seems unlikely, though, that advertisers will give up on the nuanced tracking they can get by other means, right? Whether to show you the $2 rip off umbrella that works for a single rainy day, or the $52 Proposal Pink ™ ultra-certified umbrella that keeps the rain off for a single rainy day.
They won’t be given the choice. The point is giving them some compromise in order to disable other tracking abilities from the browser. The big question with all of this isn’t whether it improves on the user’s privacy from the status quo. It’s what happens when Google effectively monopolizes most of the access to advertising data. I’m not crying for third party ad companies, I think there might be some unforseen consequences for users down the road.
But how so? Just that Google will stop feeding them personal data the ways it currently does? Or that Chrome would actively work to block fingerprinting and trackers the way and blockers and Firefox do?
Because fingerprinting happens whether the user’s browser ‘allows’ it or not.
Ok, so you mean most of what most companies get is fed from Google’s tracking? So most would lose most of their data. But not that rely on Amazon/Meta/etc who are doing their own dirty work.
I think they’ll do this.
Today everyone installs cookies and what not and tracks however they can. Once Google goes the Firefox route disabling and mitigating tracking abilities in Chrome, the only gateway to tracking data will be the data gathered by Google via Chrome and exposed via some Google-controlled API to third parties. So I think that eventually what most companies get fed by will be Google’s tracking.
Yup. And probably.
So better than the status quo, unless you’re a smaller ad company.