• Google has reversed its plan to phase out third-party tracking cookies in Chrome, drawing backlash from privacy advocates who see it as prioritizing profits over user privacy.
• The decision means users will remain under constant surveillance by advertisers, contradicting Google’s earlier promises of enhanced privacy controls.
• Critics accuse Google of using its Privacy Sandbox initiative as a smokescreen to maintain dominance in digital advertising while stifling competition.
• Even Chrome’s Incognito mode has been exposed as ineffective, with advertisers still able to track users through loopholes like fingerprinting.
• Privacy advocates urge users to seek alternative tools and browsers to escape Google’s surveillance, calling this a moral failure in the fight for digital freedom.

Google has abruptly reversed course on its long-delayed plans to eliminate third-party tracking cookies in its Chrome browser. The decision to keep the invasive tools intact in a reversal Google once framed as “progress” in its Privacy Sandbox initiative has ignited fresh outrage among privacy advocates and everyday users already weary of Big Tech’s encroachments on personal freedom. The tech giant now faces accusations of double-dealing, as millions learn that the same company promoting itself as a privacy innovator secretly prioritized profits over principles.

A betrayal of privacy promises

Google’s VP of Privacy Sandbox, Anthony Chavez, framed the decision as a response to “divergent perspectives” from regulators and advertisers. In a blog post, he stated, “We’ve made the decision to maintain our current approach to offering users third-party cookie choice in Chrome, and will not be rolling out a new standalone prompt for third-party cookies.”

The admission effectively cancels a planned feature that would have given users greater control over tracking, instead locking the platform into a business-as-usual model that keeps users under the watchful eyes of advertisers.

The about-face is the latest twist in a saga stretching back to 2022, when Google first claimed to be phasing out third-party cookies in favor of “privacy-preserving” alternatives. But as delays piled up—blamed on regulatory hurdles and industry pushback—the tech giant’s true priorities became clear. Critics now accuse Google of using the Privacy Sandbox as a smokescreen to consolidate its dominance over digital ad markets while stifling competitors. A recent federal judge ruling found Google guilty of an illegal advertising monopoly, casting further doubt on its claims of “innovation for users.”

Conservative voices and privacy advocates alike have condemned the move, calling it a prime example of how Big Tech willfully disregards individual rights for the sake of market power. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), for one, expressed no surprise, warning users in its own guidance that dropping third-party cookies would not end tracking, since Google planned to retain its own “behavioral advertising” capabilities.

The human cost of surveillance capitalism

For everyday Americans, the stakes are simple: Google’s reversal ensures that every search, click, and scroll will remain part of a vast, profit-driven surveillance machine. Third-party cookies allow advertisers to follow users across websites, compiling dossiers for personalized ads in a system critics call “surveillance capitalism.” With Chrome claiming more than 60% of the global browser market, most users lack the technical expertise or incentive to switch to rival browsers like Brave or Firefox, leaving them vulnerable to unchecked tracking.

Even Chrome’s Incognito mode, which claims to block third-party cookies, has drawn skepticism. Users learn too late that advertisers can still track their activity through fingerprinting or other loopholes, as detailed in a recent lawsuit over its deceptive labeling. Chavez’s assurance that Incognito’s protections are being “enhanced” rings hollow to those realizing their data remains commodified.

The decision also renews questions about Google’s interactions with regulators. U.S. and U.K. agencies had urged changes to the Privacy Sandbox amid fears it would tilt competition further in Google’s favor. Instead, the company doubled down, excusing itself of responsibility while shielding an advertising ecosystem that generates most of its $250 billion in annual revenue.

As Google doubles down on its surveillance regime, the onus falls on users to demand transparency and take matters into their own hands. Free tools like browser extensions, ad blockers, and alternative search engines exist, though adoption remains low due to technical complexity and Silicon Valley’s monopolistic chokehold.

Google’s continued reliance on third-party cookies isn’t just a privacy failure; it’s a moral failing. The corporation’s actions reveal a pattern of prioritizing shareholder gains, cementing its role as an antagonist in the fight for digital freedom. For those who are unwilling to accept this dystopian reality, the solution begins with rejecting monopolistic platforms entirely. The digital revolution isn’t over; it just needs more rebels.

Sources for this article include:

ReclaimTheNet.org

Engadget.com

Forbes.com