Chrome again exempts Google from user site data settings

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Chrome’s handling of site data is under fire after users showed that, even with settings configured to clear all cookies and data on exit, information from Google domains like google.com is retained. Commenters argue this behavior gives Google an unfair tracking and advertising advantage in a browser it dominates, raising broader concerns about monopoly power, weak antitrust remedies, and the ethics of engineers who build such systems. Many advocate switching to non-Chromium browsers and call for stronger regulatory scrutiny or even a breakup of Google’s advertising and browser businesses.

Scope of the Issue (Chrome Exempting Google Data)

  • Several commenters reproduce or accept the reported behavior: Chrome/Chromium retaining data for google.com despite settings to clear site data on close.
  • Some propose benign explanations (zombie/background processes, Chrome sign‑in coupling, incomplete code paths honoring settings) but others note that only Google-owned data appears preserved, which they see as unlikely to be accidental.
  • A few label it clearly as a bug; others say repeated patterns of self‑preferencing make “bug” less credible without proof.

Intent, Tracking, and Ads

  • Many see this as part of a broader pattern: Chrome and Google properties are increasingly optimized for ad tracking and data retention (e.g., redirect URLs like /goto?url= and /url, anti‑adblock efforts, Manifest V3 limits).
  • Suggested motivations include: stronger cross‑site tracking, preventing “untracked” search usage, and blocking non‑JS scrapers.
  • Some argue ads fund “free” content and aren’t useless; others say ads are irrelevant or actively discourage purchases, and ad auctions favor large players over local/targeted ones.

Corporate vs Individual Responsibility

  • Debate over whether “Hanlon’s razor” (incompetence over malice) applies to corporations.
  • One camp: corporations are just people; engineers and managers choosing to implement these features are directly responsible.
  • Another camp: organizational structure and incentives create emergent behavior worse than individual intent; both individuals and corporate design deserve blame.

Politics, Antitrust, and Monopoly Concerns

  • Strong sentiment that Google is a de facto monopoly that should be broken up.
  • Discussion of recent antitrust cases: courts found violations but imposed relatively mild remedies, which some see as systemic failure rather than a single administration’s fault.
  • Some argue both major US parties are captured by big business; others emphasize that this administration at least pursued the cases.

Alternatives and User Responses

  • Repeated calls to abandon Chrome for Firefox or other Gecko-based browsers (LibreWolf, Zen, Mullvad) or future engines like Ladybird; some recommend ungoogled-chromium.
  • A few criticize Firefox for platform decisions (audio/systemd/pulseaudio) and say this pushed them to Chromium; others counter that Firefox now works fine with pipewire/other setups.

Broader Sentiment and History

  • Chrome is compared by some to malware or a keylogger, given bundling, telemetry, and hidden behaviors.
  • Historical recollections: Chrome’s early technical excellence and adoption via bundling/toolbars, contrasted with today’s perceived user-hostile, ad-driven direction.
  • Several hope this pattern invites stronger regulatory scrutiny and serious penalties.