3 ms·
I guess the issue with proxying is that the ad provider has less control/data and can't be sure whether views are genuine.
by estaseuropano 6y ago
I guess the issue with proxying is that the ad provider has less control/data and can't be sure whether views are genuine.
- jtbayly 6y agoThat’s great if you’re right, because it means it is a fundamental limitation that can’t easily be worked around.
- chillfox 6y agoThey will work around it by being your DNS provider and proxy for your site.
- chillfox 6y agoUnless the ad provider proxy the site instead of the ads. That way they get more control/data.
- collinmanderson 6y agolike AMP
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoIt's only a matter of time before someone develops a wasm browser engine that renders to canvas and provides "trusted" delivery of ad assets over a websocket.
- jhugo 6y agoHow could that be any more “trusted” than doing it without wasm and websocket?
- adrianN 6y agoAs long as the user still has control over their machine (i.e. the browser) this approach doesn't work very well. You can't really run trusted code on an untrusted machine.
- rini17 6y agoNo, it does work well. When they deliver the website as obfuscated binary code, it's much harder for user to change its behavior. Notice parent quoted the word "trusted" so you disagree with something other than they meant.
- account42 6y agoThat would be nice since you could just block canvas by default and only allow it for a few site that have legitimate use for it.