Google Abandons Plan to Eliminate Third-Party Cookies in Chrome, Introduces New User Choice Experience

Mountain View, California United States of America
Feedback from advertisers and regulators led to change
Google abandons plan to eliminate third-party cookies in Chrome
Google's VP of Privacy Sandbox, Anthony Chavez, announced the decision in a blog post
New user choice experience introduced instead
Google Abandons Plan to Eliminate Third-Party Cookies in Chrome, Introduces New User Choice Experience

Google's Plan to Eliminate Third-Party Cookies in Chrome Abandoned

Google has recently announced that it will no longer be eliminating third-party cookies in its Chrome browser, as previously planned. Instead, the company will introduce a new experience that allows users to make informed choices regarding third-party cookies across their web browsing.

The decision comes after Google received feedback from both advertisers and regulators expressing concerns about the impact of deprecating third-party cookies on publishers, advertisers, and virtually anyone involved in online advertising. Google's VP of Privacy Sandbox, Anthony Chavez, wrote in a blog post that the transition required 'significant work by many participants.'

Google had initially planned to replace third-party cookies with its Federated Learning of Cohorts (FLoC) technology or Topics API. However, critics argued that these alternatives could lead to new privacy risks and potentially harm competition, as Google's own advertising business might unfairly benefit from the change.

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has welcomed Google's decision to abandon its plan to deprecate third-party cookies. The CMA had previously expressed concerns that the move could negatively impact competition in digital advertising markets, particularly for smaller players.

Privacy Badger, a browser extension designed to protect users from online tracking, has also opted its users out of Google's Privacy Sandbox. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), site-suggested ads in Privacy Sandbox can be exploited to re-identify and track users across websites, partially infer a user's browsing history, and manipulate the ads that other sites show a user.

Google has promised to continue making Privacy Sandbox APIs available and add anti-IP tracking protection for people using Incognito Mode. However, critics argue that this change does not go far enough in addressing privacy concerns and maintaining a level playing field for all players in the digital advertising ecosystem.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

91%

Doubts
  • Is the new user choice experience a sufficient alternative to eliminating third-party cookies?
  • Will Google's Privacy Sandbox APIs provide adequate privacy protection for users?

Sources

82%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Google’s plan to turn off third-party cookies in Chrome is dying

The Verge Richard Lawler Monday, 22 July 2024 22:17
  • Unique Points
    • Google has scrapped its plan to turn off third-party cookie tracking by default in Chrome.
    • Chrome will ask users to make an informed choice regarding third-party cookies instead.
    • The change could result in a significant decrease in users allowing third-party tracking.
    • Early tests with Google Display Ads using Privacy Sandbox tech showed a 97% recovery but decreased effectiveness for re-marketing audiences.
    • The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority will allow comments on the change to Chrome’s user-choice prompt for a few weeks.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (30%)
    The article contains selective reporting as it only reports the results of tests with Google's Privacy Sandbox tech that show a 55% recovery in spending for remarketing audiences, implying that this is a failure. However, it does not mention the other test results showing a 97% recovery with Google Display Ads. This selective reporting misleads readers by presenting an incomplete picture of the tests' outcomes.
    • Results showing returns on investment with Google Display Ads showed a 97 percent recovery, which Ad Age called strong, but effectiveness dropped in attempts to engage the same customers with follow-up ads, showing only a 55 percent recovery in spending for re-marketing audiences.
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The author makes an appeal to authority by quoting the UK's Competition and Markets Authority and the Movement for an Open Web. He also uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that Google's plan to deprecate third-party cookies is a 'clear admission that their plan to enclose the Open Web has failed.'
    • Google Privacy Sandbox VP Anthony Chavez writes that Chrome will ask users to ‘make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing’ instead of deprecating third-party cookies.
    • There aren’t details on exactly how that will work, as Google said it is ‘proposing’ a new approach, and the CMA plans to accept comments on the change for a few weeks.
    • We’ve long called for Privacy Sandbox to be allowed to compete on its merits. If advertisers prefer its approach, and consumers value the alleged privacy benefits, then it will be universally adopted.
    • Google says it will continue to make Privacy Sandbox APIs available and add anti-IP tracking protection for people using Incognito Mode.
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

78%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Google Confirms Bad News For 3 Billion Chrome Users

Forbes Magazine Zak Doffman Monday, 22 July 2024 00:00
  • Unique Points
    • Google confirmed that its plan to kill tracking cookies in Chrome has failed.
    • Chrome has been under scrutiny for its privacy practices with regulators and competitors like Apple warning about the browser’s tracking capabilities.
    • Google promised to kill third-party cookies four years ago
    • Safari and Firefox have blocked third-party cookies by default since 2020.
  • Accuracy
    • Google has scrapped its plan to turn off third-party cookie tracking by default in Chrome.
  • Deception (30%)
    The article contains editorializing and sensationalism. The author uses phrases like 'shock move', 'surprise more will shock Chrome's huge user base', and 'bad news for Chrome's 3 billion users'. These phrases are used to manipulate the reader's emotions and create a sense of urgency. The author also quotes Apple warning that 'Chrome is always watching', which is not a statement made by Zak Doffman but is included in the article for bias and to support his argument. Additionally, the author makes assumptions about Chrome users without providing any evidence, stating that 'most of whom will never change their settings'. This statement is selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position.
    • Surprise more will shock Chrome’s huge user base.
    • This is bad news for Chrome’s 3 billion users.
  • Fallacies (80%)
    The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by using the words 'shock move', 'crashed and burned', and 'bad news' to describe Google's decision. He also makes a dichotomous depiction by presenting Google's decision as a choice between user privacy and the interests of the marketing industry.
    • Surprise more will shock Chrome’s huge user base.
    • This is bad news for Chrome’s 3 billion users.
  • Bias (95%)
    The author expresses a clear bias towards Google's handling of user privacy and the failure of their Privacy Sandbox program. The author also implies that Google is prioritizing profits over user privacy.
    • Google's decision undermines their ongoing commitment to profits over user privacy. Safari and Firefox have blocked third-party cookies by default since 2020, when Google pledged to do the same. Third-party cookies are one of the most pervasive tracking technologies, enabling advertising companies and data brokers to collect and sell information about users’ online activities.
      • This is bad news for Chrome’s 3 billion users, most of whom will never change their settings and would be much better served by a browser that’s more private by default.
      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication

      98%

      The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
      (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

      A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

      Google cancels plans to kill off cookies for advertisers

      CNBC News Jennifer Elias Monday, 22 July 2024 21:55
      • Unique Points
        • Google has cancelled plans to kill off third-party cookies in Chrome browser
        • People will be able to make an informed choice about cookies and adjust it at any time in Chrome
      • Accuracy
        • Google has scrapped its plan to turn off third-party cookie tracking by default in Chrome.
        • Google confirmed that its plan to kill tracking cookies in Chrome has failed.
      • Deception (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Fallacies (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Bias (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication

      80%

      The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
      (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

      A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

      Why Privacy Badger Opts You Out of Google’s “Privacy Sandbox”

      Electronic Frontier Foundation Lena Cohen Monday, 22 July 2024 15:52
      • Unique Points
        • The latest update of Privacy Badger opts users out of ad tracking through Google’s ‘Privacy Sandbox.’
        • Privacy Badger is committed to protecting users from online tracking and automatically opts out of Privacy Sandbox.
        • Site-suggested ads in Privacy Sandbox can be exploited to re-identify and track users across websites, partially infer a user’s browsing history, and manipulate the ads that other sites show a user.
        • Google allows advertisers to include a unique ID with this data, enabling them to build a profile of the user's browsing habits.
      • Accuracy
        • Google Chrome continues to lag behind other browsers in terms of default protections against online tracking.
        • Privacy Sandbox shifts control of online tracking from third-party trackers to Google.
        • Ad measurement in Privacy Sandbox allows advertisers to track ad performance by storing data in the user’s browser.
        • Google allows advertisers to include a unique ID with this data, enabling them to build a profile of the user’s browsing habits.
      • Deception (30%)
        The article contains selective reporting and emotional manipulation. The author only reports details that support their position against Google's Privacy Sandbox while omitting any potential benefits or context that may present a different perspective. Additionally, the author uses emotive language to elicit a negative response from readers towards Google's actions.
        • , researchers found that Privacy Sandbox topics could be used to re-identify users across websites.
        • Despite being billed as a privacy feature, Privacy Sandbox protects Google’s bottom line at the expense of your privacy.
        • Google is rewriting the rules for the internet in a way that benefits itself first.
      • Fallacies (85%)
        The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by referring to Google's Privacy Sandbox as 'privacy-washing language' and 'Google's advertising business.' The author also makes a dichotomous depiction by stating that Privacy Sandbox is less invasive than third-party cookies but not good for privacy. However, the author provides evidence to support their claims.
        • Privacy Sandbox might be less invasive than third-party cookies, but that doesn’t mean it’s good for your privacy.
        • Despite being billed as a privacy feature, Privacy Sandbox protects Google’s bottom line at the expense of your privacy.
        • Researchers and regulators have already found that Privacy Sandbox fails to meet its own privacy goals.
      • Bias (95%)
        The author expresses a clear bias against Google's Privacy Sandbox feature, stating that it protects Google's advertising business at the expense of user privacy. The author also provides examples of how Privacy Sandbox could be exploited to re-identify and track users across websites, and criticizes Google for not addressing these issues before releasing the feature.
        • Despite being billed as a privacy feature, Privacy Sandbox protects Google’s bottom line at the expense of your privacy.
          • Privacy Sandbox offers some privacy improvements over third-party cookies. But it reinforces Google’s commitment to behavioral advertising, something we’ve been advocating against for years.
            • Researchers and regulators have already found that Privacy Sandbox could be exploited to identify anonymous users and that companies will likely use it to continue tracking users across sites.
            • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication