@shine Those aren't considered third party cookies by Google since google probably owns them. However, different software has different criteria for determining third partyism and as far as Google goes, it's hard to throw a stone from a Google property without hitting another Google property.
@AskChip the screenshot was from a website that wasn't owned by Google.
Anyhow, my point was that if they advertised 2 domains for the same service with one of them supposedly _nocookie_, then they shouldn't put any cookie in the first place.
@shine There are many ways to obfuscate that issue, perhaps calling it a side effect from Google analytics that a lot of websites use. Handy for the data, but it does hand some control of your website over to Google.
@AskChip you're missing the point.
A **nocookie** service should NOT set ANY cookies whatsoever. That's the whole point of using that service. Otherwise people could just go to the main website which sets cookies anyway.
@shine It is either of two possibilities. They are either blissfully unaware or they are malicious. Neither possibility is great.
@AskChip that's why I was curious too. I thought the fediverse would've noticed it, but apparently nobody cares.
@AskChip love this! though it isn't practical so much in today's world, it's a lot relatable. I've bookmarked the video for sharing elsewhere too.
I do give incorrect information to places that do not require government identities; but these systems are getting smarter too now. they've now started to verify government identities to provide simple services like even grocery delivery 🤦♂️
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!