4 ms·

Thanks for this comment. This is basically my position. While I prefer that sites would respect "do not track", ultimately I just don't want to see all the shit

Thanks for this comment. This is basically my position. While I prefer that sites would respect "do not track", ultimately I just don't want to see all the shitty ads. I don't really care if you're trying super hard to track me, though I think you're a fool if you do based on what I do online (read HN, wikipedia; download academic papers, mostly?). I sympathize with the people who are going for pure anonymity. If I could be anonymous and still have a usable web, then I would do that. If you really think you'll learn something about me by tracking me, then whatever. I have still never been served a relevant ad in my life, so, uh, great job there. But in the end I just don't want to see all the shitty ads. I would be interested to know what these people think they know about me. Based on my experience as a cognitive scientist, I suspect they know an awful lot less than they think they know ... or at least claim in their sales pitches to advertisers.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
"Thanks for this comment." Likewise. What these replies about "uniqueness" seem to ignore is that the majority of traffic on the internet is so-called "bots". In other words, it is traffic from clients that are not Chrome, Safari, etc. It is ridicuously easy to be mistaken for a "bot" when submitting requests manually, if one does not know what they are doing. For example, editing a single HTTP header is often enough. "Bot detection" is more often than not based on laughably crude heuristics. What happens if the user makes a single request manually and that header is missing. There is nothing to check. In almost all cases, nothing happens. There is no penalty for reducing the amount of information sent. In any event, it is rather easy to unintentionally "blend in" with the majority of internet traffic, which comes from "bots". Those professing to have superior knowledge about user behaviour, including Big Tech, still cannot tell if someone is submitting requests manually or not.^1 (Absent keylogging on the users computer.) Their superior knowledge of user behaviour only applies to users who use "modern" browsers that place high emphasis on graphics. Chrome, Safari, etc. No one is going to try to advertise to a "bot", i.e., a non-graphical client. It would be ineffective. The online advertisig industry relies on graphical web browsers like Chrome and Safari. Using a common browser with the default settings to try to "remain" anonymous comes at a cost. Default settings do not include installation of extensions, e.g., ad blockers. 1. Contrast this with the different question of determining whether or not a user is using a certain client, e.g., Chrome, Safari, etc. That is an easier question to answer. However detection of other clients is not done. I am never notified whether or not I am using, e.g., tcpclient, original netcat, socat, openssl, etc. How does one detect the difference. And assuming they could tell, then what. How will ads be served. The HN commenters replying about "uniqueness" fail to consider why there is so much effort to "fingerprint". It is driven by advertising which puts a monetary value on gathering user data. Using a modern browser, sending more data voluntarily to "belnd in", feeds the online advertising industry and ensures such surveillance efforts will only increase. As checkyoursudo suggests, the data collectors will "claim in their sales pitches to advertisers" that they know a great deal about users, regardless of whether the data they have collected is truly accurate or usefully informative. Feeding the data collectors "fake" or "non-unique" data is one idea, but another idea is not sending the data at all. For HTTP requests, the later works for me.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

"Thanks for this comment." Likewise. What these replies about "uniqueness" seem to ignore is that the majority of traffic on the internet is so-called "bots". In other words, it is traffic from clients that are not Chrome, Safari, etc. It is ridicuously easy to be mistaken for a "bot" when submitting requests manually, if one does not know what they are doing. For example, editing a single HTTP header is often enough. "Bot detection" is more often than not based on laughably crude heuristics. What happens if the user makes a single request manually and that header is missing. There is nothing to check. In almost all cases, nothing happens. There is no penalty for reducing the amount of information sent. In any event, it is rather easy to unintentionally "blend in" with the majority of internet traffic, which comes from "bots". Those professing to have superior knowledge about user behaviour, including Big Tech, still cannot tell if someone is submitting requests manually or not.^1 (Absent keylogging on the users computer.) Their superior knowledge of user behaviour only applies to users who use "modern" browsers that place high emphasis on graphics. Chrome, Safari, etc. No one is going to try to advertise to a "bot", i.e., a non-graphical client. It would be ineffective. The online advertisig industry relies on graphical web browsers like Chrome and Safari. Using a common browser with the default settings to try to "remain" anonymous comes at a cost. Default settings do not include installation of extensions, e.g., ad blockers. 1. Contrast this with the different question of determining whether or not a user is using a certain client, e.g., Chrome, Safari, etc. That is an easier question to answer. However detection of other clients is not done. I am never notified whether or not I am using, e.g., tcpclient, original netcat, socat, openssl, etc. How does one detect the difference. And assuming they could tell, then what. How will ads be served. The HN commenters replying about "uniqueness" fail to consider why there is so much effort to "fingerprint". It is driven by advertising which puts a monetary value on gathering user data. Using a modern browser, sending more data voluntarily to "belnd in", feeds the online advertising industry and ensures such surveillance efforts will only increase. As checkyoursudo suggests, the data collectors will "claim in their sales pitches to advertisers" that they know a great deal about users, regardless of whether the data they have collected is truly accurate or usefully informative. Feeding the data collectors "fake" or "non-unique" data is one idea, but another idea is not sending the data at all. For HTTP requests, the later works for me.