4 ms·

> I've now lost the ability to do first-party tracking of visits to "myBlog.com/some-post/" since EvilSearchEngine users never hit my server See, this is one o

> I've now lost the ability to do first-party tracking of visits to "myBlog.com/some-post/" since EvilSearchEngine users never hit my server See, this is one of the good things about the SE proposal. The source page already has all the tracking data; that's a given. But if the content is served via SE it reduces the number of other sites that get tracking data, which is very much a win for privacy. > Maybe they'll introduce "allowing a publisher to restrict the set of distributors", maybe they won't. It would make no sense for user agents to enforce such a restriction, since a valid signature shows that the content is authentic regardless of the identity of the distributor.

jabbany 4y ago
> The source page already has all the tracking data This is a lie. The source page does not have any access to referral data. Without things like JS supporting it, it does not and cannot know that a user has clicked on any of its links. > if the content is served via SE it reduces the number of other sites that get tracking data This is also a lie. It does not _reduce_ the number of sites that gets tracking data. Rather it takes the ability to control who gets to track away from a publisher (who you'd reasonably expect to be able to track your visits to _their own site!_ ), and puts it into the hands of an aggregator (like Google, who you would _not_ expect to be able to track views on third party content). In this sense it is exactly like AMP, it is a shift of who holds power over data. Users do not gain anything (privacy could be argued to be no worse, but it is certainly no better than before) but publishers have everything to lose. AMP was never a battle between users (readers) and Google. It was a battle between _content publishers_ and Google. Nothing has changed when it comes to SE. It's the same old formula just in a new bottle. Unless SE ultimately allows specification of a list of allowed distributors as part of the bundle, framing SE as "just like using a CDN" and that "Google/aggregating site doesn't benefit more from this" is at best a bit ignorant about the power struggles between publishers and aggregators.
- nybble41 4y ago
  > The source page does not have any access to referral data. The source page determines the target of the link and can add whatever tracking data they want to it. You can see from the link target that it's going back to the same site. That is all they need to get the referral data. > It does not _reduce_ the number of sites that gets tracking data. It does, as the source page has the tracking data either way but the publisher's page does not if SE is used. Frankly I'd rather trust Google with that data—they have access to it anyway, through several different channels—than a bunch of publishers I have no other relationship with. > Unless SE ultimately allows specification of a list of allowed distributors as part of the bundle, … It won't matter if the bundle contains a list of "allowed distributors" if user agents don't enforce that restriction. And why would they? They know the content is correct regardless of where it came from due to the signature. Refusing the data won't improve privacy at all, as the server already knows that the link was followed. The only one seeing any benefit here is the publisher, who would get tracking data at the expense of the user's privacy. The user agent doesn't represent the publisher, it represents the user.

jabbany 4y ago

> The source page already has all the tracking data This is a lie. The source page does not have any access to referral data. Without things like JS supporting it, it does not and cannot know that a user has clicked on any of its links. > if the content is served via SE it reduces the number of other sites that get tracking data This is also a lie. It does not _reduce_ the number of sites that gets tracking data. Rather it takes the ability to control who gets to track away from a publisher (who you'd reasonably expect to be able to track your visits to _their own site!_ ), and puts it into the hands of an aggregator (like Google, who you would _not_ expect to be able to track views on third party content). In this sense it is exactly like AMP, it is a shift of who holds power over data. Users do not gain anything (privacy could be argued to be no worse, but it is certainly no better than before) but publishers have everything to lose. AMP was never a battle between users (readers) and Google. It was a battle between _content publishers_ and Google. Nothing has changed when it comes to SE. It's the same old formula just in a new bottle. Unless SE ultimately allows specification of a list of allowed distributors as part of the bundle, framing SE as "just like using a CDN" and that "Google/aggregating site doesn't benefit more from this" is at best a bit ignorant about the power struggles between publishers and aggregators.

nybble41 4y ago
> The source page does not have any access to referral data. The source page determines the target of the link and can add whatever tracking data they want to it. You can see from the link target that it's going back to the same site. That is all they need to get the referral data. > It does not _reduce_ the number of sites that gets tracking data. It does, as the source page has the tracking data either way but the publisher's page does not if SE is used. Frankly I'd rather trust Google with that data—they have access to it anyway, through several different channels—than a bunch of publishers I have no other relationship with. > Unless SE ultimately allows specification of a list of allowed distributors as part of the bundle, … It won't matter if the bundle contains a list of "allowed distributors" if user agents don't enforce that restriction. And why would they? They know the content is correct regardless of where it came from due to the signature. Refusing the data won't improve privacy at all, as the server already knows that the link was followed. The only one seeing any benefit here is the publisher, who would get tracking data at the expense of the user's privacy. The user agent doesn't represent the publisher, it represents the user.