Deconstructing Google’s excuses on tracking protection (freedom-to-tinker.com)

Article summary

Google has been criticized for its excuses on tracking protection, with researchers arguing that the company's claims about the negative effects of blocking cookies are disingenuous. The researchers contend that cookie blocking does not undermine web privacy and that Google's arguments are an attempt to persuade users and policymakers that obvious privacy protections are not actually privacy protections. Google's approach to tracking protection has been compared to other browsers, such as Safari and Firefox, which have implemented more robust tracking protections. The researchers argue that Google's business interests are at odds with providing meaningful web privacy.

Main themes

• tracking protection
• cookie blocking
• web privacy
• browser comparisons
• advertising revenue
• fingerprinting

What commenters say

• Google's arguments against tracking protection are seen as disingenuous and motivated by self-interest, rather than a genuine concern for user privacy or the health of the web.
• The ability to block cookies is a necessary step towards protecting user privacy, despite potential limitations and workarounds such as fingerprinting.
• Some commenters believe that Google's actions are a deliberate attempt to undermine ad blockers and maintain its advertising revenue, while others see the company's efforts as a genuine attempt to balance privacy and advertising needs.
• The effectiveness of Google's proposed Privacy Sandbox in protecting user privacy is questioned, with some arguing that it is too little, too late, and others seeing it as a step in the right direction.
• The trade-off between privacy and advertising revenue is a complex issue, with some arguing that the benefits of targeted advertising do not outweigh the costs to user privacy, while others believe that advertising is necessary to support the web ecosystem.
• Google's decision to restrict ad blockers is seen as a threat to the openness and customizability of the web, and a potential blow to user choice and control over their online experience.
• The company's claims about the security and privacy benefits of its proposed changes are disputed, with some arguing that they are based on flawed assumptions or a lack of evidence.