Topics essentially works like this: rather than using cookies to track people around the web and figure out their interests from the sites they visit and the apps they use, websites can ask Chrome directly, via its Topics JavaScript API, what sort of things the user is interested in, and then display ads based on that. Chrome picks these topics of interest from studying the user’s browser history.
Isn’t this completely immoral? They are literally stealing the users private browsing history and uses it to boost their own profits.
So this is why they want that browser integrity stuff.
Without the integrity a change like this would be absolutely wonderful - my ad interests would be “FuckOff” and “Nothing”.Very apt username.
Anything would be an improvement over using stock Chrome at this poing… wow
Yeah it used to be a joke but now nobody is laughing…
deleted by creator
I somehow doubt that Chromium is safe from this. I would imagine that anything built off of Chrome will have this implemented, because otherwise they’re just “leaving money on the table.”
What you’re looking for is called the ungoogled-chromium.
what you’re looking for is firefox
Already there. Been here since the Netscape Navigator days.
It’s just that some people want to try the chrome-chromium route before landing in Firefox land.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
So what has to happen for the general population to move away from chrome/chromium?
Vivaldi had stripped out this crap, it’s good that Chromium is FOSS, anybody can gut it to their like. Apart the Vivaldi History Page is way different from al other Chromium (Calendar view customizable in several formats, stadistics with graphs, not a simple list) since its first versions…
Vivaldi doesn’t collect your history data. All of this information is strictly private and local to your computer. What you get to see is the kind of data that could be tracked by third parties. Instead of trying to monetize it, we are giving you this data – for your eyes only. With the ability to analyze this information, you can decide if you want to adjust your online behavior or remove certain items from the list.
…and when browser integrity becomes a thing?
Wich browser integrity? Because of Chromium? Google already tried this years ago to try to control Chromiums with infinite APIs added to the Chromium code, even with discriminatory browsersniffings, which practically all other Chromium Browsers eliminated just as quickly, Vivaldi the first. Windows on Edge anyway (naturally putting its own Spy APIs in place of these). No trackings or logging by Google in Vivaldi (as long as you do not naturally use Google as a search engine). This is why Google is now trying to gain control through its web services and pages that use them with this WEI DRM, which forces all browsers, no matter what engine, be it Chromium, Firefox Gecko or Safari WebKit, to include a “security” Google Token in your script to access these pages or services. This is naturally a huge bummer if not avoided, since then it depends only on Google which browser deserves this Token, which could be the end of all minority browsers, leaving in the end only Chrome itself with full internet access. THAT is the problem, not the browser integrity.
The apocalypse.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Edge is a chromium browser, too. It has been for some time now.
Edge is Chromium but it has been substantially altered. Brave and Vivaldi are much closer to Chromium than Edge is, and that’s not a compliment to Edge.
Edge is chromium though?
Nothing. It’s only the tin-foil hatters that care about privacy because the normal people have nothing to hide.
Post your entire browser history right now then.
Probably could, there’s nothing interesting you’ll find there but I’m not bothered enough.
Interesting. So they know what bank you use, which problems you have in your relationship, if your partner was ever unfaithful.
They can find out stuff about you that you don’t know yourself and use it to manipulate you (for example in pointing you away from anti trust legislation support, etc).
It’s not tinfoil hat at all. Google and co have been fined billions for doing this exact stuff.
Damn. At least I didn’t fall for the video or the song.
Post your last 100 transactions?
Nah. Am good. You people can’t read sarcasm or what …
Lol. Whatever floats your boat buddy.
Wut
Sarcasm in person generally comes with a distinctive tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language that are lacking in text-only communication. If people know you well enough in a text chat, they can often make assumptions about your seriousness based on what they know of your beliefs, but we are on an anonymous message board here. The people here have no experience with whether or not you are naive or a jokester or seriously confused. There’s a reason it became standard to mark sarcasm on reddit with /s, it is the simplest replacement for the missing tone and body language context that would go along with a statement if we were communicating face to face.
Sarcasm can also just be common sense but apparently humor isn’t that common here.
What is it with Americans naming things the exact opposite of what the thing does
Does not foes
Here are some more candidates:
- FREEDOM: Full Range Enhanced Experience Derived Online Marketing.
- LIBERTY: Leveraging Internet Browsing & Experience Records To Yield profits.
- JUSTICE: Join Users’ Surfing Trends for Intelligent Commercial Engagement.
- PRIDE: Personalized Recommendations from Internet Data & Exploration.
- HONOR: History-Oriented Network for Optimal Recommendations.
These are fun:
- TRUST: Telemarketing Reliability Using Safety Technology (abuse of safety systems)
- HOPE: Helpful Online Personalization Engine (literally just adware)
- TRUST: Tracking Retail Usage Systems Technology (amazon spying)
- LIBRE: Liberating Inconvienenced Beings of Repour Emails (gmail reading emails from your friends)
If you needed a nudge to ditch Chrome and its derivatives in favour of Firefox or Safari, this is it.
I just figured this was always happening.
the google is evil
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
This is incorrect. A user who uses chrome but uses another search engine and blocks cookies and tracking scripts is not providing Google with information about what they are doing online.
With the topics api, Google reads your actual browsing history which is incredibly private information that they have no right to look at whatsoever.
I don’t know what world you are living in when you think Google wants to desperately stop third common cookies and other means of tracking - Google is an ad company!
The internet not wanting to pay for Google services sounds like a Google problem, not a problem for the users. Google doesn’t have some universal right to exist and be preditory to it’s users.
If they can’t sell their services, they should get off the internet instead of surviving by invading their users privacy and offering “free” services. Fuck Google.
A user who uses Chrome is definitely providing Google with their browsing information. You can turn them all off (though some settings are very difficult to find and don’t have UI elements anymore) but that’s not how nornal people use Chrome.
With the topics API, Google doesn’t read shit. Your browser reads your browser’s history if you don’t visit Google’s websites, Google won’t know anything.
Google has clearly indicated their desires to kill third party cookies. Multiple times, that’s why they’ve spent years on FLoC and other mechanisms to provide ad companies with an alternative. These programmers don’t work for free, you know, especially the overpaid FAANG programmers.
You’re right that Google doesn’t have a special right to exist per se, but neither do you have a right to demand Google make a browser that suits your exact wishes. Google does what’s in the best interests of Google, and users do what’s in the best interest of users, and the two usually align. Any Chrome user can download Firefox if they don’t want Google’s code on their computer, or use Edge, or use Safari, or Konqueror, or whatever other browser you can come up with.
Google’s most expensive features are actually being put behind a pay wall (Youtube’s 4K and high bitrate 1080p video, Google Drive cloud storage, especially for business) and the internet is absolutely seething about it. It’s not just Google either, Netflix has decided to make everyone pay as well, and tons of apps and websites are now adding subscriptions to stay afloat.
Most people don’t give a fuck about their privacy if it means they get Youtube videos, messengers, social media, and apps for free. Everyone hates ads, but everyone hates paying for things more than they hate ads.
Fuck ads, use an ad blocker, problem solved.
To be fair, they immediately give the option to disable it.
Who wants to bet the option to disable doesn’t actually disable?
Who also wants to bet that every update has a 10% chance of re-enabling it
It should not be enabled by default.
I’m all for local topic analysis to replace tracking, but they did intentionally use confusing language to trick users into not opting out.
If you’re going to make something opt-out, at least be honest about it. I fully understand why they went the opt-out route, but they didn’t need to be so slimy about it.
They’re not stealing browser history. The site requests a list of topics and Chrome parses them based on the local history and returns a list of topics.
It’s more secure and private than third party cookies.
The technique they use does not really change to the issue.
It’s also not necessarily more secure than third party cookies like you claim? You can refuse those cookies and not all website use them, while all website ends up in browsing history.
I might be wrong but as far as I understand Google’s topics API only gives websites access to information like “here is a user who likes the topics IT and gardening”, which is a LOT less than what is possible with cookies. With cookies a website can get information like “here is a user who visited your website yesterday and two times last week. Also they recently visited websites A, B and C, and frequently visits website D. On website D they are logged in as X.” They make all your visits to a website and, with third-party cookies, also to other websites connectable. Google’s topics do not.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
But the website doesn’t end up with your browsing history…
And you can opt out of this just like you can opt out of third party cookies.
I would like to watch you opt out of all this every single time you sit down in the next class of your education institute or workplace.
Yes, they merely created the technology that watches everything you do. You can opt out! No worries! This certainly isn’t anything to worry about! They will definitely continue to let you opt out indefinitely. History tells me that that’s how this works.
That’s so silly; you can manage all of your data and opt out on your Google account from the start.
The way I see it, that’s just browser history exfiltration with extra steps. Whether they’re sending the actual history or parsing your history and sending topics, both are equally as objectionable to me as both could reveal information about something private you’ve been visiting.
Am all for this move if it makes Google drop third-party cookies tomorrow.
They can’t drop third party cookies until they’ve got something other ad companies can use to send ads. Microsoft has a similar (but smaller) problem.
Ad companies + browsers + antitrust is a bad combination.
They have been planning to drop 3rd party cookies since 2021 with a deadline for EOY 2023 being pushed to EOY 2024.
That’s true, but that’s mostly because the tracking replacement wasn’t ready yet. If we kill Privacy Sandbox like everyone seems to want, third party cookies will stay in until Google can find another (probably worse) replacement.
