3 ms·
If I go to foo.com, I generally expect that bar.com, baz.com, and qux.com are not also loading. We already have enough issues with tracking pixels, but now we'
by tbirrell 7y ago
If I go to foo.com, I generally expect that bar.com, baz.com, and qux.com are not also loading.
We already have enough issues with tracking pixels, but now we'll have to worry about multiple sites worth of trackers (which I'm sure google will do their absolute best to obfuscate behind the background network call and other sandboxing shenanigans)? No thanks.
- Liron 7y agoBut the Portal element won't exacerbate this issue vs what sites are already doing with iFrames and custom JS.
- ehsankia 7y agoAs you mention, foo.com could just as well have pixel trackers/scripts from bar.com, baz.com and qux.com. Nothing about portals makes it any more or less of an issue than it already is.
- throwaway2048 7y agoIts completely different because now baz.com gets control over foo.com in an invisible way just by virtue of "linking" with a portal. (and you can be sure that anyone that dosen't allow google to "portal" their pages will be damnatio memoriae'd into oblivion on results pages)
- ehsankia 7y agobaz.com doesn't take control over foo.com, and it's not invisible. You click on a link and the domain changes, it's as old as the internet itself. The only difference is that the new page will be embedded into the old one, instead of there being a clear cut transition.
- chronicler 7y agoEveryone seems to have just jumped into the 'Google is evil' bandwagon without even putting thought into it.