• lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      11 months ago

      Good in what sense? Firefox is already blocking third party cookies as part of its enhanced tracking protection (which you should set to “strict” level, go do that right now if you didn’t already).

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        Other browser makers such as Apple, Brave, and Mozilla have already begun blocking third-party cookies by default. Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge provide that option, just not out of the box.

        Chrome is behind the curve on this.

  • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Kill third party everything. No more CDNs, no more tracking pixels, no more cookies, no more content from anything but the domain in the url bar.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Any CDN worth its salt can run on your domain so that’s not an issue. The issue is that no third-party anything is pointless as links will just change from nyt.adnetwork.com to adnetwork.nyt.com. I’d rather not encourage those kinds of DNS shenanigans.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Running a CDN on your domain effectively defeats the purpose of CDN.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            No. Things being on your domain doesn’t mean that traffic hits your servers.

            • Aux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              It doesn’t, but it defeats the purpose of CDN, because your users still hit your domain instead of CDN one and cannot leverage the benefits of distributed caching. Browser cache is bound to a URL, you change one letter and it is invalidated.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Why would the URL change?

                It won’t share js libraries and fonts and whatnot cross-site but compared to a single image that should be negligible. At least if you don’t pull in gazillions of superfluous dependencies and don’t even run dead code elimination over them. And anyway that’s more bandwith usage between user and CDN, not user and you.

                Also I already said that it’s insanity. But it would work.

                • Aux@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Because you’re not using a CDN URL everyone else is.

                  Savings are massive for the user. If you don’t care about your users, please stop doing anything development related.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          The purpose of a CDN is to better cache common resources between different web sites. For example, if you’re using a Roboto font from Google CDN on your web site, just like many other web sites do, the user who previously visited other sites with such font will load your web site much faster and will spend less traffic, because he already has this font from CDN in their cache. It also means that you save money on hosting.

          If you remove CDN from the equation, you punish yourself and your users. That’s a very dumb idea. Especially when CDNs are free to use.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    With the publication of its notice of intent to deprecate and remove third-party cookies, those involved in the development of Google’s Chrome browser and its associated Chromium open source project now have more specific guidance.

    As Google senior software engineer Johann Hofmann observed in his aforementioned notice, the phaseout of third-party cookies and shift to Privacy Sandbox technology – in Chrome at least – is a significant change in the status quo.

    The impact of replacing the technical foundation of internet advertising while marketers are still doing business on the premises hasn’t been lost on regulators, who have been trying to ensure that Google builds a level-playing field – something critical lobbying groups have disputed.

    Thus Google has agreed to make specific commitments to the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to allay concerns that the Privacy Sandbox doesn’t become a killzone for competitors.

    While it seems unlikely that watchdogs want to ensure that every marketer operates from an equal level of informational wealth, competitors have a unique opportunity to hamstring the ad giant by raising the alarm amid its antitrust trials and inquiries around the globe.

    “The web in general is rapidly moving away from third-party cookies, with Firefox and Safari leading the way,” said EFF senior staff technologist Jacob Hoffman-Andrews in an email to The Register.


    The original article contains 1,739 words, the summary contains 218 words. Saved 87%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!