Publishers – Shut Up This Time, or Don’t Blame Google Next Time

Publishers – Shut Up This Time, or Don’t Blame Google Next Time

Overcoverage Leads to Overreaction


Publishers hold immense power and influence. When they push a narrative, it quickly becomes the talk of the town. When many publishers align on the same agenda, the impact is huge.


Over the last decade, mainstream news sites, general interest magazines, financial journals, and TV channels have extensively covered internet privacy. Everyone loves going after giants, and attacking big platforms like Google brings traffic. Additionally, privacy issues are closely tied to the publishing world, leading to biased decision-making regarding the topic's importance. In my opinion, the topic, though important, received more attention than its actual impact warranted and experienced overcoverage.


This surge in privacy-related content amplified users' concerns, leading to significant industry shifts as users worldwide demanded more privacy. This pressure led companies like Apple, Mozilla, and others to eliminate third-party cookies from their browsers. It also made Google contemplate doing the same with Chrome.



Browser Market Share


Chrome's market share has seen a year-over-year decline. While some of this decline can be attributed to the natural growth of Safari, driven by the increasing popularity of Apple devices, in my opinion, privacy concerns have also eroded Chrome's user base. This is evident when examining Chrome's shrinking market share on non-Apple devices. The market share of browsers like Brave and DuckDuckGo climbing from 0% to 2.7% further highlights the increasing user demand for enhanced privacy features.



While Chrome is a free product, Chrome users are valuable to Google, and losing users directly impacts Google's revenue.



Legislation and Regulation Heat


Simultaneously, legislators, seeing the demand for privacy, stepped in and created regulations like GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) and CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act). More countries, such as Brazil with its LGPD (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados) and Canada with its PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act), are adding their own regulations. Additionally, more U.S. states, including New York, Virginia, and Colorado, are enacting their own privacy laws. These regulations further pressured companies, including Google, to prioritize user privacy.


Moreover, Google has faced additional legislative pressure regarding privacy issues, with various governments scrutinizing their data collection and usage practices. This has led to investigations and fines in several jurisdictions, pushing Google to adopt more stringent privacy measures to comply with the evolving regulatory landscape.




Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome." - Charlie Munger



Google is between a rock and a hard place, stuck between two powerful incentives. On one hand, they are losing browser market share and facing increased scrutiny from users and legislators demanding better privacy protections. On the other hand, they have a significant stake in the advertising world and the substantial revenue associated with it. This dual pressure explains why, unlike other browsers, Google has been seeking a solution that would eliminate cookies without significantly harming advertisers.


Earlier this week, Google announced their decision to halt their plans to kill third-party cookies. It seems that the revenue from online advertising presented a more substantial incentive than the potential market share loss from not aligning with other browsers in eliminating cookies. This decision highlights the challenging balance Google must strike between adhering to privacy demands and maintaining its advertising revenue.



Overreaction and Self-Responsibility


The immense pressure from publishers' coverage led people globally to demand more privacy. Google capitulated to this pressure, only to be blamed by the same publishers for wanting to harm them. Google did not want to kill cookies; they caved to the demands. If publishers apply too much pressure again, the cycle will repeat. This time, however, Google might not be able to backtrack. Excessive pressure could lead to more stringent regulations, reduced innovation, and a less balanced digital ecosystem.


Unlike the clickbaity article titles suggest, I believe privacy is important and should be covered. However, publishers should be mindful that overcoverage can unintentionally cause overreaction. They must ensure they don't give this topic more share of voice than it deserves, whether due to bias towards a topic associated with the publishing world or because of the allure of attacking big tech giants.


It's crucial for all stakeholders to consider the long-term implications of their actions and strive for a balanced approach that addresses privacy concerns without stifling progress or disproportionately targeting specific entities. Responsible coverage is key to maintaining a balanced and informed public discourse.