https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/07/22/new-google-chrome-warning-microsoft-windows-10-windows-11-3-billion-users/
In a shock move, Google has suddenly confirmed that its long-awaited
killing of Chrome's dreaded tracking cookies has just crashed and burned.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/07/22/new-google-chrome-warning-microsoft-windows-10-windows-11-3-billion-users/
In a shock move, Google has suddenly confirmed that its long-awaited
killing of Chrome's dreaded tracking cookies has just crashed and burned.
Enrico Papaloma wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/07/22/new-google-chrome-warning-microsoft-windows-10-windows-11-3-billion-users/
In a shock move, Google has suddenly confirmed that its long-awaited
killing of Chrome's dreaded tracking cookies has just crashed and burned.
Perfect example of why I've never used Google Chrome.
"John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> writes:
Enrico Papaloma wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/07/22/new-google-chrome-warning-microsoft-windows-10-windows-11-3-billion-users/Perfect example of why I've never used Google Chrome.
In a shock move, Google has suddenly confirmed that its long-awaited
killing of Chrome's dreaded tracking cookies has just crashed and burned. >>
Eh? All browsers support third party cookies.
In a shock move, Google has suddenly confirmed that its long-awaited
killing of Chrome's dreaded tracking cookies has just crashed and burned.
Perfect example of why I've never used Google Chrome.
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 05:58:32 -0700, John C. wrote:
In a shock move, Google has suddenly confirmed that its long-awaited
killing of Chrome's dreaded tracking cookies has just crashed and
burned.
Perfect example of why I've never used Google Chrome.
Does Safari or Firefox or Bromite or Edge do cookie tracking different?
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 05:58:32 -0700, John C. wrote:
In a shock move, Google has suddenly confirmed that its long-awaited
killing of Chrome's dreaded tracking cookies has just crashed and
burned.
Perfect example of why I've never used Google Chrome.
Does Safari or Firefox or Bromite or Edge do cookie tracking
different?
On 2024-07-23, Isaac Montara <IsaacMontara@nospam.com> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 05:58:32 -0700, John C. wrote:
In a shock move, Google has suddenly confirmed that its long-awaited
killing of Chrome's dreaded tracking cookies has just crashed and
burned.
Perfect example of why I've never used Google Chrome.
Does Safari or Firefox or Bromite or Edge do cookie tracking
different?
Safari does:
https://webkit.org/blog/15697/private-browsing-2-0/
"John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> writes:
Enrico Papaloma wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/07/22/new-google-chrome-warning-microsoft-windows-10-windows-11-3-billion-users/Perfect example of why I've never used Google Chrome.
In a shock move, Google has suddenly confirmed that its long-awaited
killing of Chrome's dreaded tracking cookies has just crashed and burned. >>
Eh? All browsers support third party cookies.
Richmond wrote:
"John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> writes:
Enrico Papaloma wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/07/22/new-google-chrome-warning-microsoft-windows-10-windows-11-3-billion-users/Perfect example of why I've never used Google Chrome.
In a shock move, Google has suddenly confirmed that its long-awaited
killing of Chrome's dreaded tracking cookies has just crashed and burned. >>>
Eh? All browsers support third party cookies.
This thread is about tracking cookies. And Google uses tracking cookies
in Chrome.
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 05:58:32 -0700, John C. wrote:
In a shock move, Google has suddenly confirmed that its long-awaited
killing of Chrome's dreaded tracking cookies has just crashed and
burned.
Perfect example of why I've never used Google Chrome.
Does Safari or Firefox or Bromite or Edge do cookie tracking different?
Google's Ad Topics was an attempt to allow targeted advertising and
preserve privacy. But because of all the hysterical flapping about it,
it will now die a death, and we'll be left with third party cookies,
which are worse. Yes you can turn them off, but I think most people
don't. And anyway how do you want the web to be financed? If we did away
with tracking altogether you would have to sign up with an email address
at every website, or just not use it.
I'm afraid you've been duped by the commercial propagandists.
What you're saying is the logic of the Brave crowd -- the sleazeball
browser company trying to become an ad middleman by pretending
to support privacy.
The Internet doesn't need to be financed. Sites that make money
pay their own way, like dept stores, doctors, etc. Sites like my own
and a million other small sites are hosted out of pocket. I recently
did two sites -- for a metalworker and a piano seller. Both benefit
from having the site and would never think of putting ads on there.
The sites are ads!
Access is paid to ISPs... Ads are not financing the Internet.
They're just lining the pockets of a parasitic industry.
Targetted ads with privacy is BS. Mozilla is trying to do
something similar. It won't work. There's no such thing as
anonymous data with computers. That's why targetted ads
work in the first place. The software can connect the dots.
What we need is browsers not backed by ad companies
and ads that are contextual rather than targetted... If there
must be ads. Surveillance is simply wrong. Criminal. Against
common decency. If we start by acknowledging that then we
can work out the details. Just, don't screw people... Not such
an outrageous idea.
Can you get journalism or music videos without ads? Why is Netflix
either subscription or ads?
It depends on the content. If you are selling something you can make
money that way. But if you are giving content away where does the
revenue come from?
Targetted ads with privacy is BS. Mozilla is trying to do
something similar. It won't work. There's no such thing as
anonymous data with computers. That's why targetted ads
work in the first place. The software can connect the dots.
I think you are muddling up two ideas here, you are saying it is
impossible because it isn't happening. But there are ways of hiding like
with TOR or a VPN. And companies don't really need to know exactly who
is there, only general information about groups and interests.
Ad Topics is not invasive. It just tells a site if a visitor has been toa site with the same interests in the previous month or so. It's quite
vague.
The Internet doesn't need to be financed. Sites that make money
pay their own way, like dept stores, doctors, etc. Sites like my own
and a million other small sites are hosted out of pocket. I recently
did two sites -- for a metalworker and a piano seller. Both benefit
from having the site and would never think of putting ads on there.
The sites are ads!
And how do people FIND those sites?
Search engines.
How do search engines operate with no revenue?
On 7/24/2024 10:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
Google's Ad Topics was an attempt to allow targeted advertising and
preserve privacy. But because of all the hysterical flapping about it,
it will now die a death, and we'll be left with third party cookies,
which are worse. Yes you can turn them off, but I think most people
don't. And anyway how do you want the web to be financed? If we did away
with tracking altogether you would have to sign up with an email address
at every website, or just not use it.
I'm afraid you've been duped by the commercial propagandists.
What you're saying is the logic of the Brave crowd -- the sleazeball
browser company trying to become an ad middleman by pretending
to support privacy.
The Internet doesn't need to be financed. Sites that make money
pay their own way, like dept stores, doctors, etc. Sites like my own
and a million other small sites are hosted out of pocket. I recently
did two sites -- for a metalworker and a piano seller. Both benefit
from having the site and would never think of putting ads on there.
The sites are ads!
On 7/24/2024 3:23 PM, Alan wrote:
The Internet doesn't need to be financed. Sites that make money
pay their own way, like dept stores, doctors, etc. Sites like my own
and a million other small sites are hosted out of pocket. I recently
did two sites -- for a metalworker and a piano seller. Both benefit
from having the site and would never think of putting ads on there.
The sites are ads!
And how do people FIND those sites?
Search engines.
How do search engines operate with no revenue?
As I detailed above, Google started out with contextual ads --
text ads running along the right side and related to what
people searched for. Google was a billion dollar business long
before targetted ads and spying.
You seem to be playing devil's advocate, making the case
that nothing can work without spyware. Do you really believe
that? If so then you're free to let these companies spy on you.
I don't consider it my moral duty to help the likes of Zuck or
Eric Schmidt buy their next airline or island.
I've never seen ads at news sites and generally don't listen
to music. If I want a video that I can't download directly then
I don't need it. But in most cases I can download directly. Not
all media is a moneymaking product.
I've barely seen any ads in 25 years. I don't use an adblocker.
If the ads were on websites, I'd see them. But they're not. Sites
are trying to send me to other domains that I never agreed to visit.
If you want to pay for news reports or buy/rent music videos then
you're free to do so. You can also buy the albums, CDs, etc. None
of that has anything to do with surveillance-based business models.
I actually tried youtube movies with ads once. It was unwatchable.
They inserted the ads according to some time unit plan, ignoring
scene breaks.
I give things away. There's no revenue. Is that so hard
to understand? Life doesn't have to be a business. You
don't have to make a buck on everything. The early Internet
was just lots of inspired people chipping in.
You're fooling yourself. Contextual ads already worked that way.
But then companies figured out that they could spy. This isn't
going to somehow magically turn into a civilized approach. It's
getting worse, not better. Spying on cellphones. Cooperating
with credit card companies. Spying in stores. The tech keeps
improving and companies keep coming up with more ideas. It's not
just spying for ads anymore. Data wholesaling has become an industry.
For example, app developers on cellphones often make money by
simply selling data. Parasites running scripts on websites can do
the same. Pests like adobedtm, newrelic, demdex (owned by Adobe),
qualtrics, etc are all over. This is a kind of spreading infestation of spyware, well beyond things like 3rd-party Google cookies.
I said nothing of the kind.
But the idea that "the internet can be free!" is just so much bullshit.
On 7/24/2024 3:58 PM, Alan wrote:
I said nothing of the kind.
But the idea that "the internet can be free!" is just so much bullshit.
It's always nice to have interesting, in-depth
discussions with levelheaded AppleSeeds who make
clear and cogent points. :)
The Internet doesn't need to be financed. Sites that make money
pay their own way, like dept stores, doctors, etc. Sites like my own
and a million other small sites are hosted out of pocket. I recently
did two sites -- for a metalworker and a piano seller. Both benefit
from having the site and would never think of putting ads on there.
The sites are ads!
Access is paid to ISPs... Ads are not financing the Internet.
They're just lining the pockets of a parasitic industry.
Social media sites do need to be financed. They are not sites that are themselves advertising a service, like a retailer or a doctor or
whatever. In a social media site, the site is itself the service --
the service of helping people to connect to other people online.
A lot of people started social media sites because they thought of
original ways of linking people in ways that people find useful.
Think of some of the early social media sites. An example is
Geocities, which offered free web hosting in a series of themed
communities. As it's popularity grew, so did the cost of maintaining
it, servers, internet access fees. One way of financing it was ads,
and banner ads could be targeted at the themed communities. Then it
was taken over by Yahoo! where the main idea was as a source of
revenue. They did not understand what made it attractive to users, so
they messed with the model and killed it.
It's our moral duty as citizens and humans to work
toward an ethical, humane society.
On 7/25/2024 2:18 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
Social media sites do need to be financed. They are not sites that are
themselves advertising a service, like a retailer or a doctor or
whatever. In a social media site, the site is itself the service --
the service of helping people to connect to other people online.
A lot of people started social media sites because they thought of
original ways of linking people in ways that people find useful.
Think of some of the early social media sites. An example is
Geocities, which offered free web hosting in a series of themed
communities. As it's popularity grew, so did the cost of maintaining
it, servers, internet access fees. One way of financing it was ads,
and banner ads could be targeted at the themed communities. Then it
was taken over by Yahoo! where the main idea was as a source of
revenue. They did not understand what made it attractive to users, so
they messed with the model and killed it.
Social media is an interesting category. As far as I know,
the Meta companies seem to be doing fine financially. But Reddit is
in the red and have recently gone public while selling out to Google
and OpenAI/Microsoft, selling both companies direct access to
postings. Reddit now requires logging in with script from Google.
Like news media companies, social media have very real costs and
struggles. But I think we need to clarify the issues. The question
was really about the role of the Internet for humanity. Should
we allow flim-flam salesmen to turn it into a Miracle Mile shopping
mall, infested with virtual drug dealers like Zuck, addicting our kids,
in exchange for free stuff? Is there any point at which surveillance
becomes unethical? Is there any truth to the assertion
that the Internet will collapse and disappear without surveillance-
fueled ads? Should barely socialized young men, obsessed with
power and greed, be allowed to manipulate children, making them
addicted to the likes of Facebook? Where are our priorities?
To claim that the Internet must be a business is, first of all,
a claim with no evidence. To claim that such businesses can't
run without cheating and lying is even more farfetched. More
importantly, it's looking at the issue backward.
It's our moral duty as citizens and humans to work
toward an ethical, humane society. The Internet is foremost a
new PUBLIC communication medium. It's not a company whose
stock value must be maintained.
Many social media sites started as the former, and were taken over by companies that turned them into the latter, or tried to, and if they
failed, they were dumped -- as Yahoo! took over Geocities, destroyed everything that made it attractive to users, and then dumped it,
leaving a lot of dead links on the web, and a lot of useful
information rendered inaccessible.
On 7/25/2024 9:19 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
Many social media sites started as the former, and were taken over by
companies that turned them into the latter, or tried to, and if they
failed, they were dumped -- as Yahoo! took over Geocities, destroyed
everything that made it attractive to users, and then dumped it,
leaving a lot of dead links on the web, and a lot of useful
information rendered inaccessible.
I think of Geocities as a good example of the early Web. I wasn't
aware of that history. I just remember that a lot of people set
up interesting and creative websites on there... then they were
gone.
I think of Geocities as a good example of the early Web. I wasn't
aware of that history. I just remember that a lot of people set
up interesting and creative websites on there... then they were
gone.
Because the infrastructure that let them stay up had to be PAID FOR.
On 7/25/2024 11:53 PM, Alan wrote:
I think of Geocities as a good example of the early Web. I wasn't
aware of that history. I just remember that a lot of people set
up interesting and creative websites on there... then they were
gone.
Because the infrastructure that let them stay up had to be PAID FOR.
Indeed. Didn't Geocities have ads? I don't remember now.
I seem to remember there was another one called Xoom
that ran banner ads on homemade sites. And Steve just
explained that the Geocities problem was Yahoo.
My own first site, on which I taught myself HTML, was
on Mindspring, my ISP at the time. They provided 5 MB
of space to any customer who wanted it, for free. It came
with the ISP account. A lot of ISPs did
that. It was part of the vision -- that the Internet was
for everyone, so everyone should be able to have a
connection, email, and a "front door" onto the information
superhighway. Even today one can get a free site on
Wordpress, or a dirt-cheap site at servers like Dreamhost.
Are you, perhaps, too young to remember when the Web
wasn't a shopping mall? It's really true. :)
In you money-obsessed zeal you snipped out the rest
of my post, which explained how Google gradually choked
to death the "long tail" of the Internet. Those sites disappeared,
in large part, because Google wanted to focus on their
advertisers and on the sites hosting their ads. To look at
search results today one could be excused for thinking that the
Internet is composed of a couple hundred commercial sites.
A big e-shopping mall. Google drops out the rest, for the most
part. At one time, Google results went on endlessly. Today you
get a couple of pages. Same with DDG.
We could do something like add a small tax to Internet
service in order to provide free resources. That might be a good
idea. We could even have a publicly funded search engine. But
it's a matter of priorities. If you want to sell the public
parks to ParkCo, and let them put ads on trees or meters on
benches, then that's another way to go about things. Personally
I see that as a sign of a society without self-respect, with everyone
just out for themselves.
On 7/25/2024 11:53 PM, Alan wrote:
I think of Geocities as a good example of the early Web. I wasn't
aware of that history. I just remember that a lot of people set
up interesting and creative websites on there... then they were
gone.
Because the infrastructure that let them stay up had to be PAID FOR.
Indeed. Didn't Geocities have ads? I don't remember now.
I seem to remember there was another one called Xoom
that ran banner ads on homemade sites. And Steve just
explained that the Geocities problem was Yahoo.
My own first site, on which I taught myself HTML, was
on Mindspring, my ISP at the time. They provided 5 MB
of space to any customer who wanted it, for free. It came
with the ISP account. A lot of ISPs did
that. It was part of the vision -- that the Internet was
for everyone, so everyone should be able to have a
connection, email, and a "front door" onto the information
superhighway. Even today one can get a free site on
Wordpress, or a dirt-cheap site at servers like Dreamhost.
Are you, perhaps, too young to remember when the Web
wasn't a shopping mall? It's really true. :)
On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 05:58:32 -0700, John C. wrote:
In a shock move, Google has suddenly confirmed that its long-awaitedPerfect example of why I've never used Google Chrome.
killing of Chrome's dreaded tracking cookies has just crashed and
burned.
Does Safari or Firefox or Bromite or Edge do cookie tracking different?
Firefox stores cookies in containers by default, i.e. one container per
site, so in theory this means they cannot be used for tracking. It may
break some things where two different login domains are used though,
like live.com and microsoft.com.
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/introducing-total-cookie-protection-standard-mode
Anyone who wants better privacy but must allow cookies
would do best to set FF to delete cookies at the end of the
session -- then don't leave FF open when not actively browsing.
(Of course, that solution won't work for people who like to
leave 100 tabs open. They're being tracked continuously.)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 465 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 46:28:16 |
| Calls: | 9,401 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,572 |
| Messages: | 6,099,272 |