Disclaimer, I work at Google on related things on the Android side, but I only have a layman's understanding of the Chrome side.
If the answer is a very low number, then why is Privacy Sandbox on by default?
In Chrome, none of the Privacy Sandbox APIs even respect the browser's built-in Do-Not-Track setting.
Contextual ads are enough. Advertisers don't have an intrinsic right to optimally profit off my device hardware, and they should be thankful for whatever profit they do end up getting.
Google's tech lead on Privacy Sandbox, Michael Kleber, says that "[…] limiting the web to contextual advertising solutions dramatically decreases the ability of web sites to fund themselves — for example, 52% less revenue for sites on average, and 62% less for news sites, according to https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/disabling_third-pa..., […]"
48% of current revenue is plenty. Privacy Sandbox is adtech greed forced onto users.
So you're sticking to third party tracking cookies? Sadly this is unlikely to be a false dichotomy, as we've already seen paywalls put up around adblockers, I expect to see the same for browsers without third party cookie support – I already have to mess with Safari on a regular basis to get websites to work because it doesn't accept them.
>> Contextual ads are enough.
to
> So you're sticking to third party tracking cookies?
? The correct amount is zero tracking, on the basis that it's enough to know what ad goes to what page, without needing to follow the user around the web and track them individually.
Competition regulators in the UK, US, and EU all made it clear that Chrome could not remove on-by-default third party cookie support without a replacement that worked well enough for other ad networks.
The UK CMA did it with a formal consent decree, EU, the US states, and DOJ each "just" threatened anti-trust action if it happened.
It isn't a false dichotomy; the choice really is between 3p tracking cookies vd. something like the Topics API.
Regardless, "Google is legally obligated to not protect your privacy" is the weirdest pro-Firefox argument I've read lately, but I guess it's an acceptable conclusion.
That is plenty. Users don't need to assist ad networks.
But the fact is that the regulators covering basically all of the West don't share that opinion. In fact, they're not merely neutral on it. They have expressly forbidden Google from doing what you want.
And while your opinion is as valid as anyone else's, as a practical matter what the regulators decide will trump that opinion.
In case you didn't get the drift from "Advertisers don't have an intrinsic right to optimally profit off my device hardware": I block third party cookies in Chrome and use other browsers that have third-party cookies blocked by default.
If you're asking about how I use third party cookies myself in my own software: I maintain a popular consent manager used all across the internet. It doesn't use third-party cookies. We're actually planning to implement Privacy Sandbox regulation capabilities so that our customers can properly gate your APIs based on tracking consent and user privacy rights (since you don't respect your own browser privacy signals).
If you're asking how I will react to a web with more paywalled ad-free content: Emotions ranging from indifferent to pleased, depending on the content source.
Are you aware that your coworkers have frequently claimed that Privacy Sandbox by itself somehow "enhances" ad privacy, conflating the removal of third party cookies with the introduction of Privacy Sandbox? The notice has since been removed, but I'm still waiting (likely forever) for an issue to be addressed about these fraudulent claims[1].
Nobody wants Privacy Sandbox except advertisers.
1. https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=143154...
Docs for Protected Audience API: https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/relevance/prot...
It feels like there's a bunch more pieces to the puzzle too. There's Topic API, which by itself only tells a site more about users, but does so in a supposedly privacy preserving way. There's dozens of efforts listed on https://developers.google.com/privacy-sandbox/relevance/prot... , mostly slated for 2023 & seemingly not updated in a while (with abundant broken links too). It's a bit wild that third party cookies are deprecated even though it seems like then promised fair privacy preserving replacement for ads is maybe still being built?
If you work on Android maybe you can do a 20% project where you let users completely opt out of motion-based user fingerprinting even when airplane mode is on https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/7811918/google-is-tracking-you...
Or even a change to let Android users get a percentage of the profits garnered from Google’s fingerprinting of them.
I don't want to be influenced by ads on every website that are targeted by my socioeconomic status, such as the potential ability to afford a holiday outing or purchase a car inferred through interest in holidays and cars.
Being able to differentiate on interests such as 'holidays' and 'cars' as compared to 'fast food' enables advertisers to sell the same product at different prices to different socioeconomic groups. This is bad for society.
https://webkit.org/blog/11529/introducing-private-click-meas...