At least the EU [0], UK [1] and two different US government entities [2][3] have all made it clear that Chrome can't disable 3rd party cookies without a replacement that keeps (non-Google) ad networks competitive. The theory seems to be that it would be anti-competitive, because Google doesn't actually need either 3p cookies or a replacement mechanism while ad networks do.

So unfortunately the "neither" choice is not an option here.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/eu-antitrust-reg...

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-to-keep-close-eye-on-...

[2] https://www.engadget.com/google-antitrust-doj-cookies-privac...

[3] https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/16/22333848/google-antitrust...

I’m not deeply familiar with things, but I don’t think that stuff should be relevant: if Google is getting information that other ad networks can’t (and I have no real idea about this), that’s a problem, and it’s unfair advantage and anticompetitive behaviour even while third-party cookies are a thing—just perhaps less extreme than after third-party cookies are removed. But any probes then should be more along the lines of “why is google.com privileged” rather than “Google must add the Topics API before removing third-party cookies”.

Safari and Firefox already disabled third-party cookies a while back. There’s no problem with that, right?

You entire premise is flawed since google.com is not privileged in this. It has exactly the same capabilities of setting first-party cookies as every domain.

"But Apple's and Mozilla's moms let them disable third-party cookies" isn't likely to be a winning argument in court when the major Western competition authorities threatened you in advance with anti-trust action.

If google.com isn’t using any privileged position (I was guessing they were, from your comment), then where’s the problem? There’s no antitrust: third-party cookies are a privacy problem, and the browser industry has unanimously decided to remove them, and in fact everyone else has already removed them—Google is last here. The fact that one of the browser providers (and yes, maker of the biggest one) happens to be an advertising company should then be irrelevant—either Google is simply doing things better than everyone else in the advertising industry, or they’re behaving anticompetitively in some other way. But I don’t see how this could legitimately be tied to removing third-party cookies.

Look, I really don't know what to say here.

I agree that what you say should be true. But it is not, and I've already posted the sources to show it in my first message in the thread. Do you think the sources are fake? Or do you think that all those regulators are just joking around, and when Google does something they expressely forbid, it'll just be laughed off?

I think the argument is that disabling 3rd party cookies in Chrome would not be anti-competitive is Google didn't collect any information about Chrome users.

As a matter of fact, Google domains do have (or at least used to have) privileged treatment in Chrome: There are special request headers that Chrome automatically includes in requests to Google-owned domains - and only those. [1]

But even if not, Chrome makes all kinds of API calls to the Google backend, independently of browsing. It would be trivial to e.g. upload the browsing history there and associate it with the user's Google account.

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/05/google_chrome_id_numb...

Chrome already lets you delete cookies or browse in incognito mode, wouldn't the same argument mean they couldn't provide that? Disabling third-party cookies could be a switch in the settings that the user chose, like those.

I wonder how Topics could change that reasoning.

The Topics API is intentionally much less capable than 3rd party cookies. So if Google phased out 3rd party cookies and replaced them with Topics, the abilities of non-google ad networks would already be curtailed. Meanwhile, the same restriction doesn't apply to Google as they can just have the browser track users in much the same way as 3rd party cookies used to do.

So even with Topics, there would be a power imbalance between Google and other ad networks.

do users want it? no. do users not want it? also, for the most part, no. people don't care about this nearly as much as you want them to.

fully informed and knowledgeable people can make a decision that they don't really mind if advertisers know a bit about them. especially when it's as benign as knowing what general topics they might be interested in.

This reads like "only tell people who ask, exploit those we can get away with, and when they start to catch onto our schemes, obfuscate the system by adding new complexity and telling them it's for their own good, then repeat."

I want to use internet services that have no paywall. I want them to get paid, with a minimum of ads. And I prefer ads that might be relevant to me, and which might provide value even for small advertisers (as opposed to brand advertising).

That all requires data collection and that’s ok with me as long as they handle it responsibly (oddly the ones that handle users data responsibly – never selling or leaking yet - seem to be the most hated).

I have no ties to said tracking companies, or any other skin in this game.

Do you think that ads will provide them with enough revenue? Based on the current status-quo, ad-supported only services seem to be waning. Businesses would much prefer paying customers vs ad-supported, I think.

If that’s a choice you get to make without that choice being forced upon me because I clicked a link, great! We’re both happy.

I don’t mind a consent wall, or a paywall, but what I do mind is that the second I click a link, the page is already trying to turn my user agent against me to glean as much information about me as possible.

It's fine if you want to opt into any tracking info you want. The issue is that it should be opt in and a clear choice, not obfuscated in the background or framed as if it's necessary for basic services to work.

> What _user_ wants this?

You're asking the wrong question. Chrome users are the product not the customer. Google cares about Chrome users in the same way a farmers care about their cows that they are raising to be slaughtered.

Asking Chrome users if they want to be tracked is like asking cows if they want to live their lives in a fenced in enclosure (or worse). It doesn't really matter what they want unless not doing what they want affects the bottom line (and even then, there are trade offs).

The correct question to be asking is "Which of Google's customers (the people paying for ads) want this?" and the answers seems to be most, if not all, of them.