> First-party and third-party cookies can be set by the website you're visiting and websites that have items embedded in the website you're visiting. But when you next visit the website, only first-party cookie information is sent to the website. Third-party cookie information isn't sent back to the websites that originally set the third-party cookies.
This mess of words is merely an excuse to say that the 3rd party cookie protection didn't really work. Are you seriously raising this as a feature in some way as good as 'block 3rd party cookies'? As the bugs you linked show, Chrome's behaviour broke sites where Safari worked, yet leaked cookie data to sites.
> Are you seriously raising this as a feature in some way as good as 'block 3rd party cookies'? As the bugs you linked show, Chrome's behaviour broke sites where Safari worked, yet leaked cookie data to sites.
My point was that your previous claim that Chrome didn't have a third-party cookie blocking feature until after other browsers because Google hates privacy is wrong, since Chrome launched with a similar feature and its developers explicitly tried to maintain cookie-blocking parity with Safari.
The site breakage you referenced was because Chrome was blocking cookies where Safari wasn't. The data leakage bug also explicitly states Safari was subject to the same data leakage. Neither issue supports your initial claim, since they are proof that Chrome developers wanted parity with Safari, which suggests the point of Chrome wasn't to create a browser with less privacy protections than the competition.
This mess of words is merely an excuse to say that the 3rd party cookie protection didn't really work. Are you seriously raising this as a feature in some way as good as 'block 3rd party cookies'? As the bugs you linked show, Chrome's behaviour broke sites where Safari worked, yet leaked cookie data to sites.