Cookie Status: browser tracking protections compared
Comments on “Cookie Status: browser tracking protections compared”
Claim-checked. Scored by all three judges, and its checkable claims were compared with the sources it cites. How far stories are checked
Cookie Status, a reference comparing default tracking protections in Brave, Chrome, Edge, Firefox and Safari, was updated on 31 October 2026 with new rows for tracker blocking and fingerprinting. Third-party cookies are partitioned in Brave and Firefox, blocked in Safari, limited in Edge and unrestricted in Chrome, where Google dropped its default-restriction plan. Safari 27 now blocks cross-site requests to identity-resolution services. Several entries, such as Brave's six-month cookie cap and Safari's canvas result, rest on the site's own tests or lack a cited source.
Why it ranked
No. 16 of 59 with a score of 0.62. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.79) and substantiated (0.76), lowest on significance (0.49). The judges disagreed most on new information (spread 0.45), so the story is marked contested. Placed No. 16, No. 25 by score alone: the placement terms moved other stories past it.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- A detailed, regularly updated reference comparing browser tracking protections with specific sourced changes; useful to web builders and privacy engineers, but a reference page rather than news.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A maintained, source-linked comparison of default browser tracking protections offers actionable privacy and compatibility context for web builders. It is technically useful and current, though niche, reference-style, and not a landmark development.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.62total under rubric v2.3Contestedjudges differ by 0.45 on new information
- Significance0.49
- Reader interest0.64
- Audience breadth0.66
- Practical relevance0.70
- Substantiated0.76
- Technical depth0.73
- New information0.79
- Counts against: Promotional0.05
- Counts against: Overclaim0.12
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SignificanceHow much does this change what people in tech know or can do? | 0.53 | 0.40 | 0.55 | 0.49 | 0.15 | +0.24 | +0.119 |
| Reader interestWould a well-informed senior engineer or tech founder want to read this today, and likely pass it on? | 0.55 | 0.60 | 0.78 | 0.64 | 0.23 | +0.26 | +0.167 |
| Audience breadthHow many people who build technology does it concern? | 0.76 | 0.60 | 0.62 | 0.66 | 0.16 | +0.13 | +0.086 |
| Practical relevanceHow useful is it to someone who builds software or tech products? | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.70 | 0.03 | +0.22 | +0.155 |
| SubstantiatedHow well is it backed? Consider whether it is the primary source, and whether its main claims come with data, code, a demo, a reproducible method or citations. | 0.79 | 0.70 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.09 | +0.05 | +0.038 |
| Technical depthHow technically substantive is it? | 0.92 | 0.70 | 0.58 | 0.73 | 0.34 | +0.05 | +0.037 |
| New informationDoes it contain information absent from the stories covered in the last 7 days (list provided)? | 0.92 | 0.50 | 0.95 | 0.79 | 0.45 , above the contested threshold | +0.05 | +0.040 |
| PromotionalIs it mainly marketing with little substance (a press release, ad or sponsored post with no real information)? A launch post that carries real news is not promotional. | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.08 | −0.19 | −0.010 |
| OverclaimDo the headline or conclusions claim more than the body supports? | 0.14 | 0.20 | 0.03 | 0.12 | 0.17 | −0.11 | −0.014 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.616 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.616 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-11-01/16/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-11-01/16.svg" alt="Ranked #16 on Rubric, 1 Nov 2026" width="238" height="28"></a>Claim check
Claim check: 5 matches source · 2 no source given · 1 couldn’t check. Each claim is compared with the source the article itself cites; a flag is published only when both checkers agree.
Matches sourceDate
Google has dropped its plan to restrict third-party cookies by default in Chrome and retired most other Privacy Sandbox technologies in October 2025.
The cited source says the same thing.
The article says “Google has dropped its plan to restrict them by default, and retired most other Privacy Sandbox technologies in October 2025”
The source says “Google は、Chrome でユーザーがサードパーティ Cookie を選択できるようにするという現在のアプローチを維持することを 発表 して以来”
Source cited by the article: privacysandbox.google.com/blog/update-on-plans-for-privacy-sandbox-technologies
Matches sourceVersion
Safari 27 blocks cross-site requests to identity resolution ("ID graph") services.
The cited source says the same thing.
The article says “Cross-site requests to identity resolution (“ID graph”) services are blocked. Safari 27”
The source says “In our iOS, iPadOS, macOS, and visionOS 27 releases, Safari and WebKit block network access to identity resolution infrastructure to prevent cross-site tracking”
Source cited by the article: webkit.org/blog/18438/blocking-identity-resolution-infrastructure
Matches sourceNumber
Mozilla says Firefox 151's fingerprinting protection makes about 14% fewer users uniquely identifiable, and about 49% fewer on macOS.
The cited source says the same thing.
The article says “Mozilla says this makes about 14% fewer users uniquely identifiable, and about 49% fewer on macOS”
The source says “This reduces the number of users uniquely identifiable by common fingerprinting techniques by an average of ~14%, and by ~49% on macOS”
Source cited by the article: firefox.com/en-US/firefox/151.0/releasenotes
Matches sourceVersion
Safari 27.2 no longer caps cookies set by responses to top-level navigations at 7 days when the site's hostname is a CNAME to another domain.
The cited source says the same thing.
The article says “Cookies set by the response to a top-level navigation are not capped, even if the site’s own hostname is a CNAME to another domain, such as a hosting provider. Safari…”
The source says “Fixed cookies set by a top-level navigation’s own response being capped to a seven-day lifetime when the site’s hostname is CNAMEd to a different registrable domain”
Source cited by the article: webkit.org/blog/18515/webkit-features-for-safari-27-2
Matches sourceVersion
CHIPS (the Partitioned cookie attribute) first shipped in Safari 18.4, was removed in 18.5, and returned in Safari 26.2.
The cited source says the same thing.
The article says “First shipped in Safari 18.4, removed in 18.5, back in 26.2”
The source says “Originally shipped in Safari 18.4 in March 2025, CHIPS was temporarily removed in Safari 18.5 for further refinement”
Source cited by the article: webkit.org/blog/17640/webkit-features-for-safari-26-2
No source givenNumber
Brave caps first-party cookie lifetime at about 6 months for cookies set with both document.cookie and Set-Cookie.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “Maximum expiry of about 6 months, for cookies set with both document.cookie and Set-Cookie”
The source says No source to compare with.
Couldn’t checkVersion
Firefox 85 and later partitions network state, including the HTTP cache, by top-level site.
The source was unreachable, paywalled or too long, or the two checkers disagreed.
The article says “Network state, including the HTTP cache, is partitioned by top-level site. Firefox 85”
The source says No passage could be compared.
Source cited by the article: mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/85.0/releasenotes
No source givenNumber
In Safari 26 testing, the canvas fingerprint was the same across sites and restarts, so no noise is added to fingerprinting APIs.
The article gives no link or citation for it.
The article says “No noise is added to fingerprinting APIs such as canvas: the canvas fingerprint was the same across sites and restarts. Safari 26”
The source says No source to compare with.
Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 3 pts, not on front page
Recorded for context only, checked 1 Nov 2026, 05:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.