4 ms·
If there was, they could've communicated it clearly already a year ago. There is no reason to give Google the benefit of the doubt, since it's clear they're not
by sha666sum 7y ago
If there was, they could've communicated it clearly already a year ago. There is no reason to give Google the benefit of the doubt, since it's clear they're not trying to get it.
If this rolls out, I'm going to very loudly tell my friends to use Fox, and not stop.
- cherioo 7y agoThey have, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3NzzhHzc-qnk4w4PX-0XMw8 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPu6Wy4LWR66EFLeYInl3Nzz..., and reading it I have always thought it makes sense, as much sense as why Safari decided to do it. However, I don't think I have ever thoughtful discussion why their intended goal (security and privacy) is wrong or could be done in other ways. I feel sad that each time this comes up even on HN it's always "Google, ad company, bad". There's a mention elsewhere about 30k limit being limiting. Why aren't we discussing alternative enforcement metrics, and request for inclusion?