3 ms·
Agreed. If ads are served by the site I'm visiting and don't include cross-site tracking bugs, then I think that should be acceptable to most. Speaking for my
by sbarre 7y ago
Agreed. If ads are served by the site I'm visiting and don't include cross-site tracking bugs, then I think that should be acceptable to most.
Speaking for myself, I've never been opposed to ads on sites (within reason - popovers are trash), because I understand that creating content costs money, but I don't like all the tracking that comes with them.
- cyborgx7 7y agoIt's always fun to read comments by people who clearly only read the title and haven't clicked on the link.
- sbarre 7y agoI did actually click the link and read the whole Github issue thread, and the discussion here, before commenting. But I was actually responding to the parent's comment (this is a threaded discussion, yes?) about how actual first-party ads are less objectionable than third-party tracking. But thanks for adding your thoughts.
- jrochkind1 7y agoThere's no reason code served from the "first party" can't also participate in cross-site tracking, just by using cross-site API's on the back-end to report user actions to a central tracker. It is more technically challenging to implement. If it becomes necessary, I'm sure there will be plenty of money invested in making it easier for the content providers to participate in such things.