3 ms·
In this case a different ad on that page would change the hash and you’d have to hash the content periodically anyway. When I was using FB I noticed I “liked”
by close04 7y ago
In this case a different ad on that page would change the hash and you’d have to hash the content periodically anyway.
When I was using FB I noticed I “liked” some FB pages that in he meantime changes hands and were posting all kinds of crap. The name of the page stayed the same so I didn’t get the usual warning. With dynamic websites it’s impossible to have any control over those changes.
- kerkeslager 7y agoI think you're misunderstanding the nature of what I'm proposing. You don't sign a hash of the URL or the page. You sign a URL of the content. If the content changes, your signed hash will no longer match, and the like no longer validates, which is exactly the point--your like isn't intended to apply to all future things the page owner could possibly put on that page, it's intended to apply only to the content that is there. And personally, I'd never intentionally like an ad anyway. In general, ads causing things to lose all likes if they inject them into the content would be a good thing, because it would force advertisers to differentiate dynamic ads from content. EDIT: I see you edited to clarify your other post, so my post here doesn't really apply any more. I've responded to that post directly.