Google's First Party Sets (FPS) AND WHY SHOULD YOU STOP USING CHROME BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE

[jangdonggun1234]

https://www.ghacks.net/2022/05/23/brave ... o-privacy/
https://brave.com/web-standards-at-brav ... arty-sets/
https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/08/ ... e_domains/

Currently, different domain names are considered third-parties in most cases, even if they belong to the same company. With the new technology in place, Google could group all of its properties together to improve communication and data flows between them.

Failing to stop Google operation will make the web x10 worse than it currently is.

[Moonchild]

First party sets are yet another step closer to having content delivered as packets of indistinguishable content.
We've made a conscious effort for over a decade (and that is "we" as the whole of the browser market and standards bodies, not just Pale Moon/Goanna) to implement smart and complex machinery to strictly separate first and third party content, to implement same origin policies and cross-origin restrictions (and all of that works and works well!). And now Google wants to do away with that?

This will not be implemented in Goanna, as it is harmful.

A Google Chrome engineering manager has stated: "No, we are not proposing to change the scope for permissions. The current scope for FPS is only to be treated as a privacy boundary where browsers impose cross-site tracking limitations."

But this is precisely changing the scope of permissions to include third-party domains (no doubt things like googletagmanager.com and doubleclick.net...), so they are proposing exactly what they are saying they aren't proposing. Read the text.

[Moonraker]

W3C has opposed this but does the W3C have any clout anymore.?.

Google is a big army to fight,
General word salad from google hiding the true intentions and no doubt this will affect chromium based browsers unless they specifically have ways to thwart it although i doubt once it reaches chromium it will have any effect.

[moonbat]

Google controls W3C & WHATWG at this point - all the draft proposals are from their engineers.

[Moonraker]

Google controls W3C & WHATWG at this point - all the draft proposals are from their engineers.

Goodbye world wide web as it was originally conceived.

[Moonchild]

all the draft proposals are from their engineers.

Not just that. To vote on W3C proposals you need to be a paying member that has a pretty high financial threshold (US$20k I believe?) to enter (see also how they pushed EME through that was PURELY a google thing even though they had the pretense it was "Adobe can play too" initially until it was set in the standard).

[jangdonggun1234]

W3C has opposed this but does the W3C have any clout anymore.?.

Google is a big army to fight,
General word salad from google hiding the true intentions and no doubt this will affect chromium based browsers unless they specifically have ways to thwart it although i doubt once it reaches chromium it will have any effect.

W3C is "nobody" nowadays, just look at how Google implemented useless Web Components just to make the web uglier, heavier, sluggier... Because of Web Components I've seen so many heavy websites that can easily hang my web browser or use 1-2GB RAM with only 1 tab. Google definitely treats their web browser like an operating system, that's why they released Chromebook and expected web browser to use 16GB RAM of user system like Windows/Linux.

[moonbat]

Google definitely treats their web browser like an operating system

That is the endgame. The web started as a distributed document viewing system, the design of web browsers reflects this. It was supposed to be just static multimedia content, with plugins to handle non standard data like video and Javascript was added to help with client side form validation and some rudimentary effects on the page. Google's vision is to turn the web browser into a virtual machine running thin clients as separate containers (hence their day one design decision to run each tab in its own process). Eventually they'll figure out a binary alternative to HTTP itself for the sake of efficiency; even otherwise Javascript mangling for performance makes it pointless to even try to view source.
In a few years, expect the addressbar to be replaced by a search bar so you can only see sites that they let you search for. Everything will be running in its own container, beyond any user control.

[Moonchild]

Eventually they'll figure out a binary alternative to HTTP itself for the sake of efficiency; even otherwise Javascript mangling for performance makes it pointless to even try to view source.

We're already partly there.
WASM is bytecode.
HTTP/3 (QUIC) proposals treat HTTP as proprietary data streams
Web Bundles™ Is currently experimental Google tech that sends web "apps" as packed/binary blobs to the browser to unpack and run.

Of course it'll be touted as an improvement after the gradual degradation of web speed due to increasing heaps of JS-for-everything

[andyprough]

Pale Moon is the only major browser I can think of that isn't walking blindly into this trap.

[mr tribute]

Pale Moon is the only major browser I can think of that isn't walking blindly into this trap.

Read the Brave link in the original post. Mr Mozilla took the integrity with him when he left.
Not sayin' that Brendan Eich is a saint, but he has managed to build a business without being evil.
Google and Mozilla have a lot to learn from this guy.

[andyprough]

Read the Brave link in the original post. Mr Mozilla took the integrity with him when he left.
Not sayin' that Brendan Eich is a saint, but he has managed to build a business without being evil.
Google and Mozilla have a lot to learn from this guy.

It's a good statement that Eich issued, but his company is still reliant for all their basic code from Google I think, so from my perspective he's still walking that blind path. Brave should do a hard fork like Pale Moon did from firefox and go off on their own.

[mr tribute]

It's a good statement that Eich issued, but his company is still reliant for all their basic code from Google I think, so from my perspective he's still walking that blind path. Brave should do a hard fork like Pale Moon did from firefox and go off on their own.

You don't do a hard fork without an annual $450 million handout from Google if you target mainstream. Without a sugar daddy Firefox would be dead quicker than you could say Goooogle.

The reckless, infinite scope of web browsers
https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reck ... scope.html

[Moonchild]

You don't do a hard fork without an annual $450 million handout from Google if you target mainstream.

And yet, we target mainstream without that kind of funding. After all, Pale Moon is a general-use browser that works just fine on the bulk of websites.
Maybe I should stop targeting mainstream? What should I be targeting, instead?

[mr tribute]

You don't do a hard fork without an annual $450 million handout from Google if you target mainstream.

And yet, we target mainstream without that kind of funding. After all, Pale Moon is a general-use browser that works just fine on the bulk of websites.
Maybe I should stop targeting mainstream? What should I be targeting, instead?

I'm sure you target mainstream. However, a Pale Moon user isn't a mainstream user. We are geeks in one way or another. If you need privacy and/or extension functionality to such an extent that you can't use ungoogled-chromium or Brave then you are a geek or even an uber geek...

I'm a (uber)geek, but the Web has run its course. We might see a break-up of the Web in one form or another. Countries that impose more severe barriers for international Web traffic for example. This might be a good thing and the only way to break up the Google monopoly. Our representatives in our democracies completely sold out. I find that the hardest part to deal with. I'm glad you continue the fight, but we are on the losing end unless someone powerful enters the game.

[andyprough]

You don't do a hard fork without an annual $450 million handout from Google

If only the Pale Moon developers were as great as Mozilla at wasting vast sums of money on things that don't make the browser any better...

we are on the losing end

As long as Pale Moon is implementing web standards and is secure and is free from the Google tentacles, then we are all the biggest winners. It's frankly amazing that we have all that we do in Pale Moon without selling out and using the blink engine.

I'm glad you continue the fight

We should define "the fight" and "mainstream", not let Google define it. The fight should be to support the most secure, standards compliant browser possible. The fight should not be "I want a browser that makes insecure and poorly developed sites look like they do in Chrome". The only way to win that game is not to play.

[moonbat]

We should define "the fight" and "mainstream", not let Google define it. The fight should be to support the most secure, standards compliant browser possible. The fight should not be "I want a browser that makes insecure and poorly developed sites look like they do in Chrome". The only way to win that game is not to play.

Mainstream at this point is Blink based browsers, which the unwashed masses are fine using. Google has made standards meaningless by their constant updates and draft specs, in that context the only stable thing for PM to do is to implement only those standards that have been formally published as opposed to drafts (and even out of them, WebRTC and DRM are intentionally and desirably excluded). Given that PM won't work with 'Chrome first, Chrome only by design' websites anyway, I'd say it never started playing that game.
It would be great if Google antitrust proceedings focused on their browser engine and standards monopoly instead of search, but that's too much to hope for.

[mr tribute]

Failing to stop Google operation will make the web x10 worse than it currently is.

Yes, that is what I fear. Why has Google started "the war on cookies"?

Google has tried to attack cookies with FLoC, Topics and now First Party Sets. Expect the attacks to continue.

From my amateur point of view my conclusion is that Google thinks:

- a cookie is too easy to block
- a cookie doesn't necessarily benefit Google
- cookies don't represent a centralized system controlled by Google

Maybe EU shot themselves in the foot with GDPR and cookie warnings everywhere. People get tired of cookie warnings and see cookies as evil instead of just blocking third party cookies and automatically accepting first party cookies from the sites they visit.
I'm not familiar with GDPR, but how does seeing cookie warnings on each site improve privacy?
Was GDPR intended and/or steered into a tool to demonize cookies and pave the way for a more centralized Internet completely controlled by Google?

[Pentium4User]

I'm not familiar with GDPR, but how does seeing cookie warnings on each site improve privacy?
Was GDPR intended and/or steered into a tool to demonize cookies and pave the way for a more centralized Internet completely controlled by Google?

The cookie warning does not improve privacy, but the GDPR rules that it is necessary to inform the user when saving data. The user can deny that, but most sites stop working if they do so. There is no real choice, but most politicians don't even understand what cookies are and how they work and that the user can configure the browser to completely block them, regardless of any warning.

[Moonchild]

most politicians don't even understand what cookies are and how they work

They actually don't have to, because it's been abstracted to having to "give explicit consent" to "storing of data". That is so broad it completely misses the boat, of course, but that's politics for you.