this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024

72 points (68.6% liked)

Technology

59135 readers

2313 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Why has Firefox not removed third-party cookies, despite the fact that Chrome has begun phasing them out? (lemy.lol)

submitted 8 months ago by King@lemy.lol to c/technology@lemmy.world

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] oktoberpaard@feddit.nl 217 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I’m pretty sure that Chrome’s alternative is designed by Google to track you in a way that’s harder to block and gives them more control over the advertising market by forcing advertisers to play along and use their method instead of collecting your data directly. Sure, it’s more private, but it’s still tracking you.

Firefox, on the other hand, is focusing on completely blocking cross-site tracking. They have no incentive to completely block 3rd party cookies as long as there is also a legitimate use case for them, but I guess they will eventually also block them if Chrome is successful in forcing websites to stop relying on them for core functionality.

[–] sunbeam60@lemmy.one 29 points 8 months ago

You’re telling me Firefox is the better browser?! Well colour me surprised.

[–] Rob@lemdro.id 11 points 8 months ago

exactly.

[+] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world -12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Not sure how Chrome's alternatives for providing relevant ads are harder to block when you can just turn them off (and examine the data it's collected) in the settings. These systems are what Chrome is able to do at the moment to work towards blocking third party cookies. They do have an incentive to make something that they know works well for them though, I'll give you that.

[–] le_saucisson_masquay@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

when you can just turn them off (and examine the data it’s collected) in the settings

Is that part of the chromium engine which is open source or is it closed source ? Because if that part of the code is not visible it doesn't matter what Google tells you.

[–] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It's part of the open source chromium engine.

Here's how it implements some of the privacy sandbox stuff for example: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/refs/heads/main/components/privacy_sandbox/

and here's some of the Topics API stuff: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git/+/refs/heads/main/components/browsing_topics/

Theoretically they could still inject malicious code even if the stuff in the chromium source code looks fine. Given they got sued for their servers still tracking you while Chrome was in Incognito mode (even with the warning every time you open Incognito mode), I'd imagine any injection of code like that would result in another lawsuit (or several). At some point you either have to trust that Google is implementing things how they say they are in the code that they put out or just use a different browser.

[–] le_saucisson_masquay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I checked your link but as most people I'm not programmer, so we can't check or even remotely understand what Google engineers does. On the other hand, what common people can understand is 'follow the money ́. Google makes most of its money on selling personalized ads, the more data they get on you the higher advertiser will bid.

It would make absolutely no sense, financially, for Google to reduce it's tracking ability and let the user decide which ad they want to see or not.

And at the end Google is a business, money goes in, more money goes out. They could be doing what they claim to do right now, only to change in 2 years when all third party advertiser are bankrupt because they can't use cookies anymore. That's another possibility.

[–] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

The way I see it, Google knows that changes are coming to the advertising industry, either through regulations or just public opinion. By doing this now, they can try to get ahead of those changes/criticisms while controlling what systems their advertising competitors will have to operate under. I don't doubt that Google will still have enough data to do relevant advertising, either with the data from these new systems in the browser or the first-party data they have on people through their sites.

[–] thrawn@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

As a relative layman I also have the same question. If you can turn it off, what makes it so bad?

I’m not saying I trust Google, of course. It just seems like they have a vested interest in screwing over third party advertisers and making them more dependent on Google. If you can then disable the Google part, isn’t it a net benefit?

(I don’t use chrome and am not familiar with this change, so I may be missing something)

[–] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Strictly speaking, it's an improvement over the current situation where you are tracked across the web to come up with a profile of your interests which is then used to deliver targeted advertising. The interest-based advertising is the end goal, it's where Google makes its money. Google doesn't necessarily need your data or to track you across the web to do that. I think people are unhappy that it doesn't go far enough and just want either no targeted advertising or no advertising at all. Removing the ability to target ads would result in more ads being needed to make up for lower quality placements, which I believe would lead to increased ad blocker usage and an advertising death spiral. News sites are already almost practically unusable on mobile without blocking ads for example. Having no advertising means getting revenue another way such as paywalls and subscriptions.

With the Topics API, your browser will keep track of your history and provide sites with a limited number of topics (1 per week). Instead of being an opaque system on an ad provider's server, you can examine and modify the topics being used in your browser or even look at the source code of the feature in the browser itself. With the Protected Audience API, the ad bidding process can occur in the browser as well instead of on a remote server. These features can be turned off.

There is definitely some concern that they're screwing over third-party advertisers which is why their pages come with stuff like:

subject to addressing any remaining competition concerns of the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

Regardless, Chrome ditching third-party cookies means that websites can no longer rely on them and must adapt their sites to function without them. This will mean that Firefox's Total Cookie Protection should work better and they can remove third-party cookies in the future instead of having to create workarounds.

[–] TheBlackLounge@lemm.ee 127 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Firefox blocks known trackers and isolates third party cookies per site. They do have legitimate uses, and not every site has made the switch to modern tech that could replace it.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/blog/goodbye-third-party-cookies/

[–] GigglyBobble@kbin.social 11 points 8 months ago

That's the superior approach and Firefox introduced it far earlier than Google addressed the problem.

Why OP is blindly arguing in that corp's favor and ignoring all the reasoning provided here, is beyond me. Shilling?

[–] rambaroo@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah my company uses them for integrating some of our apps together. They aren't used for tracking at all, and we'd be up shits creek if they were, because our (corporate) customers audit that sort of thing.

Because of Google we've had to create an alternative solution which has taken years to develop and is only getting deployed now. Those fuckers have way too much power over the Internet.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 82 points 8 months ago (2 children)

There's a check box in FF settings to block all third party cookies.

You should probably educate yourself before making inaccurate claims.

[–] lengau@midwest.social 8 points 8 months ago

The option to disable third party cookies has been in pretty much every browser (Chrome included) for decades. OP is talking about Google's move to make it the default.

[–] Overspark@feddit.nl 47 points 8 months ago

Firefox has been able to block all third-party / cross-site cookies for ages. It's just not the default because it breaks some sites. But dive into the settings and you can easily set it to block all cross-site cookies, or even all cookies if you prefer.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 36 points 8 months ago

I’m confused. Didn’t this start at the beginning of last year?

https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/02/23/total-cookie-protection/

[–] Rob@lemdro.id 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Why would an open source browser remove a feature just because a corperation did it. Talking like that, might as well use Chrome. Oh wait. But it's *spyware / anti AdBlock.

Why doesn't Firefox make *using AdBlock harder since Google does the same? Firefox isn't competing for Market share, it's suppose to be an Opensource browser and being so should mean that you have the best features for the user, and not a company.

Had you ever asked why would Google get rid of 3rd party cookies, and also ask, what did they replace 3rd party cookies with? another way for them to track you, and only them. They took potential revenue from sites that aren't them just because they can.

[+] King@lemy.lol -37 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Third-party cookies make tracking users easier. I am not asking Firefox to follow Chrome at each step.

I am just asking for the privacy browser to improve users' privacy by removing support for third-party cookies, because it theoretically will not break anything.

[–] c10l@lemmy.world 35 points 8 months ago (1 children)

3rd party cookies make tracking users easier when the same cookie can be used on many websites.

Firefox does 2 things to protect you from that: it blocks known trackers cookies by default; and for the others it isolates them per domain so that kind of tracking doesn’t happen. That ensures you’re not tracked and at the same time it doesn’t break any functionality.

If you want to completely block them you can. There’s more info here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/third-party-cookies-firefox-tracking-protection

[–] Rob@lemdro.id 1 points 8 months ago

There is that too.

[–] Rob@lemdro.id 14 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I do agree, that removing it would improve user privacy, however I feel that should be up to the user to decide on their own if they want or don't want third party tracking cookies as it has been.

The alternative that Google proposed I don't think it's any better then what is was before with 3rd party tracking cookies. I'd say it's worse since it introduces new problems while keeping old problems under a new name.

If everything goes through Google, no one has personal control and that's what i'm against. This encourages what open source users should be against.

[–] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure how moving stuff like topics of interest into the browser where it can be modified/turned off by the user in a single, local location isn't an improvement over the current situation?

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because google is still tracking you. They are just getting rid of third party cookies being able to follow you on the web. They have fingerprinted the chrome browser itself, so every instance of it is unique to the individual using it (or their hardware) with the intent of continuing to track you while making it difficult for other third parties to do the same. And they're using deceptive language to make it seem like that's not what's happening. That language may not work on everyone but it will work on the vast majority especially of younger gen people who just aren't as tech savvy despite how much tech is integrated into their lives.

[–] Rob@lemdro.id 2 points 8 months ago

Yes, Google isn't getting rid of tracking in it's entirety, they're just getting rid of the tracking competition on the Chrome browser. And no one has the guts to make their own commercial browser to stick it to Google and their monopoly, all we really have are open source browsers. Even Edge has to be open source to an extent since they borrow from Chromium.

I wouldn't go so far as to just assume that all younger gen people aren't tech savvy. I guess it would just depend on the person and how casual or into tech they really are.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[–] TheBlackLounge@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's why they're asking

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

They're asking in a presumptive, judgemental way

[–] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago

I believe Mozilla said it best here:

https://blog.mozilla.org/data/2018/01/26/improving-privacy-without-breaking-the-web/

Firefox’s privacy protections must be usable on the web, or people will simply stop using Firefox altogether.

The web is not at the stage yet where third-party cookies can be disabled entirely. Chrome's phase out of them this year should push all those sites still clinging to them to fix their sites. This should mean less problems when using Firefox's privacy features. Firefox won't necessarily need to remove the feature soon anyways since it already isolates them per site.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

They will likely remove them soon I suppose. And it's easier to leave the option available in case it breaks someone's use-case until they fix it.

[–] prex@aussie.zone 16 points 8 months ago

It's been an option for as long as I can remember. I suppose they are leaving the default until websites adapt to chromes changes.

[–] 5opn0o30@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think they took a different approach and block known trackers but not all cookies.

[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago

Mine has been blocking for years now. It's already there, just not on by default. It does break some sites so am assuming that's the reason. I just got use to the fact some sites will stop working and moved on.

[–] rhebucks-zh@incremental.social 2 points 8 months ago

money