3 ms·
As one of an extremely large group of people who will never use that library but DO get protected from some ads and tracking by blacklisting beacon.js, I disagr
by chillydawg 9y ago
As one of an extremely large group of people who will never use that library but DO get protected from some ads and tracking by blacklisting beacon.js, I disagree that it's an issue with ad blockers.
The internet is a toxic place, to put it mildly, and if you're getting into any kind of public facing service on it, you need to know exactly what you're doing.
- vsund 9y agoI totally agree with you, but I think adblockers could do better than just block all requests that have "beacon.js" in it. But yeah, I definitely prefer many protected users about one working library :) There are so many possibilities to block content, I'm sure that we could do better with protecting users against tracking while ensuring that less content gets blocked false-positive.
- f4rker 9y agoThey are called "ad blockers" but block all kinds of "non ad" content that breaks sites in unexpected ways.
- Ajedi32 9y agoWait, you're saying that a false positive in an ad blocker is _not_ an issue with the ad blocker? Of course it is! Blocking files based solely on their names is a brittle and error-prone way of doing things, and this false positive is a clear example of that.
- chillydawg 9y agoFor sure it's a false positive and I wish it didn't happen. But it does happen and there's no way I'm ditching my ad blocker just because of some small number of false positives.