Google Wants It Both Ways

Googleis face a hustle of backlashafterannouncing plansto protect user privateness by stay to allow cookies in Chrome in a proposal it shout out the Privacy Sandbox . This mat up like a surprise , since the companysuggested in Maythat it would “ update how cookies are wield in Chrome . ” Since Apple , Mozilla , and Microsoft are all moving by from track user through biscuit , it seemed like Google would do the same . But nah . Cookies are ripe for advertizer , and Google makes a ton of money selling ads .

In other tidings , Google want it both way . Its recent announcement came robe in a lot of finger - good words about how important privacy is and how kibosh cookies would advance the practice session of internet browser fingerprinting , a comparatively rare method of on-line tracking that uses metrics like fount installed or CRT screen size to make unique profiles of each user . Right on the hound of this argument , however , Google points out that blocking cookie would also prevent publishers from serving relevant ads and making money which “ jeopardizes the futurity of the vivacious connection . ” Google fails to admit here that its master business is selling those ads to publishers . So , in what a dyad of Princeton research worker are calling “ privacy gaslighting , ” Google insists that it believes in user privacy but refuses to take the necessary steps to protect user privateness , since it ’s presumably more profitable not to do so .

The whole affair is sort of wild when you abuse back and think about it . Jonathan MayerandArvind Narayanan , the aforementioned Princeton researchers , have been observe Google ’s privacy record for the estimable part of a decade , and they utterly roasted the company ’s new initiativein a blog postthat picks asunder nearly every part of the Google proclamation . Whether you ’re a privacy fan or not , this deconstructionism of Google ’s strategy offers a fascinating glimpse into the current land of the web . Key amongst the divine revelation therein are well - documented argument about how cookies do n’t in reality help publishing firm make much more money — the researchers say cookies offer up about a 4 percent receipts bump — as well as how allowing cookies is hardly a strategy to foreclose fingerprinting .

Illustration: (Google / Gizmodo)

“ To appreciate the absurdity of this argument , ” the research worker compose , “ imagine the local law tell , ‘ We see that our town has a pickpocketing problem . But if we crack down on pickpocketing , the pickpocketers will just switch to mugging . That would be even worse . sure enough you do n’t want that , do you ? ’ ”

In compositor’s case you do n’t quite get the metaphor , Google is essentially indicate that by continuing to allow a misdemeanor , it might prevent felonies . Meanwhile , its competitors are straight - up combat offense . Apple says it has always blocked third - party cookies in Safari , and in 2017 , the caller launchedits Intelligent Tracking Prevention technology , which further limits cookies and other data point collection for foreclose cross - site tracking . Mozilla announced a alike initiativecalled Enhanced Tracking Protectionearlier this year . In its recent declaration , Google appeared to cite these explicitly pro - privacy effort by warning that they “ are having unintended consequences . ”

It ’s not clear why Google thinks protect substance abuser ’ privateness will wreak hypothetical havoc on the WWW . It does seem obvious that trail users through cookies helps Google make more money by selling extremely targeted advertising . Beyond that , the company is attempt to work up an argument around how sticking to tracking users is the best because its competitor ’ newfangled secrecy protection have n’t been tested . Cookies , on the other hand , have been around for age . What Google fails to remark is that , according to the original technical specifications , cookies were never supposed to allow for third - party tracking . It ’s troupe like Google that have enabled these tight small critter to thrive .

Argentina’s President Javier Milei (left) and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., holding a chainsaw in a photo posted to Kennedy’s X account on May 27. 2025.

“ The overt paternalism here is disappointing , ” Mayer and Narayana say . “ Google is taking the position that it knows better than users — if user had all the privacy they want , they would n’t get the free content they require more . So no privacy for drug user . ”

Would it be so direful if you could expend the web without that ad for some horrible stool pigeon chasing you from internet site - to - web site ? reckon a future when ads were n’t so frighteningly targeted that people think companiesare tapping into their devices ’ microphonesto take heed in on their conversation so as to serve them more relevant ads . Instead of meaningful changes to how its web browser could improve privacy , Google is offering the world a Privacy Sandbox that includesa series of explainerson how it could make some change to Chrome without limit the billions of dollar it makes selling targeted ads . We reach Google for more information on why it ’s doubling down on cookies , despite privateness proponent detest the thought andmany masses believingafter its earlier announcement that the caller was collapse down on cookies . A Google voice said that there were “ no change ” from its earlier announcement and pointed us to the blog place that explains how Google is doubling down on cookies .

Really , the big piece of encouraging selective information to harvest from all this is that it ’s passing easy to stop using Chrome . Switch to Safari!Go back to Firefox!Give Edge a try ! Do n’t believe Google when it state it knows what ’s best for you . None of these tech companiesare your friend , and it ’s progressively looking like Googlewants to be your vicious foe .

William Duplessie