Google has changed its mind about dropping support for third-party cookies in Chrome, after years of trying to make it happen
For a while, there was a moment when it looked like Google was going to do what appeared to be the right thing and depreciate support for ad-tracking third-party cookies in its Chrome browser. But after much deliberation with regulators, publishers, and members of the advertising industry, the decision is being dropped in favour of giving the end user the means to «make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing.»
Cookies are little files that are stored on your computer when you browse a website hosted by a server. They're useful pieces of data, as they can store things like authentication and login details, and to the advertising industry, they're a goldmine of potential information. So-called third-party cookies are typically used to track the browsing habits of web users so that web pages can be configured to display targeted ads.
Back in 2019, Google announced a long-term goal of making the web more private, via its Privacy Sandbox project. A few months later, it made the surprising statement that it intended to phase out support for third-party cookies in Chrome. Now, four years later, Google has formally stated (via the Register) that it's no longer going to do this and will give users the option to change whether their Chrome installation supports them.
The vice president of Google Privacy Sandbox, Anthony Chavez, wrote in the statement: «Instead of deprecating third-party cookies, we would introduce a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing, and they’d be able to adjust that choice at any time.»
Given that Google was dead-set on doing this, and had been trying to implement it for many years, why would it suddenly change its mind about it all? Well, investigations by the likes of the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) almost certainly played a part, which raises another question—why would Google be investigated for this? At face value, you'd think that the removal of
Read more on pcgamer.com
