Chrome is entrenching third-party cookies that will mislead users
Google’s plan to keep third‑party cookies in Chrome while adding “Related Website Sets” – a mechanism that lets companies declare groups of domains as a single first party – is raising alarms among privacy‑minded users and developers. Critics argue that centralizing control of these sets under Google and relying on users to understand opaque domain relationships effectively recreates cross‑site tracking, with studies showing people routinely misjudge which sites share ownership. The debate widens into concerns about Chromium’s dominance, the incentives of ad‑funded browsers (including Brave and Firefox), and whether any browser is still meaningfully acting as a user’s agent rather than an ad‑tech client.
Chrome, Third-Party Cookies, and Related Website Sets (RWS)
- Chrome has backed off fully deprecating third‑party cookies; instead it plans a user “choice” flow, with unclear UX details.
- RWS / First‑Party Sets let groups of domains share storage as if they were one “site,” bypassing normal third‑party cookie blocking.
- A central list (in a Google-controlled repo) defines these sets; sites must apply for inclusion. Critics see this as Google becoming a global arbiter of cross-site tracking.
- Some argue this solves real legacy problems (e.g., multi-domain properties like Stack Exchange login), but others say those sites had years to consolidate under one domain.
User Study and Misleading UX Concerns
- A small Brave study found users often misjudge whether two domains belong to the same organization.
- Many participants believed Chrome was protecting them when, under RWS rules, cross-site tracking would still occur.
- Commenters highlight this as evidence that “user choice” dialogs around tracking are easily deceptive.
Impact on Other Browsers and Standards
- RWS is a Google proposal; Firefox and Safari have publicly said they won’t implement it.
- Several expect Chrome to ship it anyway, “not on any standards track,” leveraging market dominance.
- Non‑Chromium browsers may be pressured if major sites rely on Chrome-only behavior, though some argue Safari’s market share and history of blocking third‑party cookies mitigates this.
Browser Ecosystem, Funding, and Trust
- Many note virtually all major browsers are funded directly or indirectly by advertising (Chrome, Brave, Edge, Safari via Google search deals, Firefox via Google).
- There is heated debate over Brave’s credibility (crypto/BAT model, past affiliate/VPN issues) versus its strong default privacy posture.
- Firefox is praised for privacy and customization but criticized for management, ad-tech partnerships, and dependence on Google.
- Concerns about Chromium monoculture: bugs, backdoors, or anti‑privacy “features” can propagate across most browsers.
Broader Privacy, Tracking, and Ads Debate
- Some accept coarse-grained profiling if they’re in large anonymity sets; others are “anti-tracking absolutists.”
- Strong desire for browsers to fight fingerprinting (canvas, GPU, audio devices, extensions), not just cookies.
- Many argue free content doesn’t justify pervasive surveillance; contextual ads and user-paid models are seen as underexplored alternatives.