"Like FLoC and Privacy Sandbox before it, Manifest V3 is another example of the inherent conflict of interest that comes from Google controlling both the dominant web browser and one of the largest internet advertising networks."

Thank you to the author for getting to the point: conflict of interest. Google cannot represent ("protect") users and sell to advertisers at the same time. No amount of blog posts/marketing/propaganda/arguing in forums can change that. Advertisers are paying Google for services, users are not. Google's entire racket has become heavily dependent on these conflicts. Google believes it must gain/preserve "user trust". Google wants users to believe it is on their side. That is what con arists must do.

Remember when other browsers announced they would not adopt FLoC. Websites also announced they would disable it as a courtesy for users through use of the Permissions-Policy response header.

https://wordpress.org/support/topic/add-interest-cohort-to-p...

https://github.blog/changelog/2021-04-27-github-pages-permis...

https://paramdeo.com/blog/opting-your-website-out-of-googles...

https://scotthelme.co.uk/what-the-floc/

DevTools still warns this is an "unrecognised feature". Does interest-cohort=() even work. Perhaps it does but in some jurisdictions FLoC is enabled by default in Chrome. The user has to manually disable it. Assuming the user evens knows what it is.

https://github.community/t/i-have-no-idea-what-the-interest-...

I found the CFTC, for example, has a nice usage of the Permissions-Policy header, better than the Guardian.

www.cftc.gov

permissions-policy: accelerometer=(),autoplay=(),camera=(),clipboard-read=(),clipboard-write=(),fullscreen=(),geolocation=(),gyroscope=(),hid=(),interest-cohort=(),magnetometer=(),microphone=(),payment=(),publickey-credentials-get=(),screen-wake-lock=(),serial=(),sync-xhr=(),usb=()

www.theguardian.com

permissions-policy: camera=(), microphone=(), midi=(), geolocation=(), interest-cohort=()

But really, how much can anyone rely on something like this. Users have no meaningful control over this browser. It is changing all the time, and "features" are tested on different groups of users, without ensuring their informed consent. Sure, a user extension may work now, but whether it works in the future is not within the user's control and, most importantly, Google's interests and the user's interests are almost certain to conflict.

"Google's efforts to limit that access is concerning, especially considering that Google has trackers installed on 75% of the top one million websites."

I have learned to enjoy blocking Google's incessant attempts to phone home. Google is curiously obsessed with TLS, so substituting a self-signed certificate for Google websites can actually be one of several ways to stop these connections, letting them fail at the proxy. It seems Google really does not want users to see what data Chrome is trying to send to Google. I wonder why.

Someone recently showed me an interstitial page they got while logging into Gmail, asking for their date of birth. It was very deceptive. It asked the user to "help us comply with the law" or some such. Of course, it was optional (the cookie had already been sent and the user was already logged in, unbeknowst to her) but there was no indication to that end. It appeared to be mandatory. The user was led to believe she could not proceed without entering a date of birth.

A company with millions in cash reserves behaves like con artist who cannot get a real job. It is impossible for me to take this seriously as business. A massive con. Yes. An honest business. No.