Google: About that whole getting rid of third-party cookies thing – we're gonna need another year or so

Google, which makes the only major browser not blocking third-party cookies by default, has revised its commitment to phase out third-party cookies by 2022. The super-corp's biscotticide is now scheduled to begin in mid-2023 and run through late 2023. Third-party cookies refer to tracking files deposited in one's browser …

[IceC0ld]

if the option to block by default is merely a button push away, why is it taking so long for Google to actually pull out the digit, and set it so it is on by default ?

could it be that Google, as an advertiser ;SHOCK:

could actually gain more from having free access to YOUR data ......................

or are they hoping this will all die down and they can carry on screwing every last penny out of their 'loyal' consuming customers ?

[Snake]

RE: push-button lobotomy

It's the Goose That Passed the Golden Fart, it might smell like hell but killing the goose only gets you meat for a single meal.

Letting that goose lay rotten eggs still gets you money from the suckers who buy without checking the cartons.

[Danny 14]

it is simply learning the mystical art of tracking without tracking.

[gandalfcn]

I sense Google are telling porkies. Very, very big ones.

[Peter Mount]

I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by.

The first thing I thought when I read this:

“I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by.”

― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused

I use Chrome, and it already happens sometimes that a website asks me to specifically allow third party cookies for them, because otherwise their login system won't work (they share login systems with other sites). Doesn't that mean that third party cookies are disabled by default? Or is the plan to block them completely without whitelist?

[John Robson]

Cookies...

The only thing that this means is that they have another way of tracking everyone :(

Currently running side by side to verify that it's "better" :(

Bet they still can't sling an ad that's actually relevant though.

[beep54]

Re: Cookies...

Back before I had a good ad blocker (uBlock Origin), I can remember seeing a weird side ad that went: "Glory holes? You can get them at Amazon!"

[Kane]

Yeah, they need more time...

...so that the ad-brokers can update their tech.

[Howard Sway]

The sheer arrogance....

What strikes me is that Google think that it must be they who get to decide when they stop the current way tracking everyone and everything, and what replacement mechanism they get to enforce on the rest of the world to do the same (whether the rest of world wants it or not).

This announcement, "you can't have it until we're ready and 100% it works for us in the way we want it to" is just as arrogant.

[Wade Burchette]

Re: The sheer arrogance....

That is the same nonsense Microsoft did when IE was the dominant browser. Having one major player in the web standards game is very very bad.

[Pascal Monett]

I use Chrome for one thing only

To log on to my professional Gmail account.

It's already borgified, why should I use anything else ?

For everything else, it's Firefox with Noscript and UBlock origin.

[Wade Burchette]

FLoC

"Doubts about Google's privacy claims for FLoC persist and other browser makers have distanced themselves from the still-developing technology or outright disavowed it."

Google can take their Filthy Lucre supercookie and pound sand! When customers are complaining about something, the answer is not to switch to a different system which makes the issue they were complaining about harder to control and even worse.

[Steve K]

Re: FLoC

You need to ask who the customers are here... It'll be the ones paying Google/Alphabet...

[Warm Braw]

Re: FLoC

The solution to Google's sticky fingers is already out there.

[J27]

So glad I switched to FireFox.

[beep54]

The only thing

that I use Chrome for is to play Sudoku. Oh and a crappy spades game. I don't trust Chrome. At all.

[Anonymous Coward]

When will advertiser's realise....

Target the ads to the webpage being viewed, not on some notional understanding of the person reading.

Simply put, not only should your creepy stalking be illegal, it doesn't help your advertising, so why are you doing it?

[AnonEMusk Noel]

when is a turd not a turd?

When it's a toxic byproduct.

This just seems remarkably like stalling for time in an effort to re-present ad tracking. Google's bread and butter.

[AnonEMusk Noel]

Re: when is a turd not a turd? - Or

Stalling for time to find an alternative that's palatable to enough of the users ( product ) that it's still an attractive business proposition to Google's customers.