4 ms·

The article claims that the meta pixel can load JavaScript. Does anyone know if/how that's possible? I can't think of a way using an image alone would trigger d

The article claims that the meta pixel can load JavaScript. Does anyone know if/how that's possible? I can't think of a way using an image alone would trigger downloading JS

smelendez 4y ago
It’s not a literal pixel and hasn’t been for years – it’s a js file included from a Meta site. They still call it the pixel for some reason, maybe to make it seem less potent.
- iamacyborg 4y ago
  I think they just used to call it the “like” button
schemescape 4y ago
I think it’s a snippet of JavaScript code and not an “img” tag, despite the name.
itishappy 4y ago
> The Meta Pixel gets its name from trackers that traditionally took the form of small, one-pixel-by-one-pixel images. These tiny graphics are embedded on websites and emails and typically collect info on who views the content. Since the Meta Pixel’s first iteration over a decade ago, when it was called the Facebook Conversion Pixel, the pixel’s functionality and tracking have grown quite expansive. Now the Meta Pixel is a mechanism that loads JavaScript code capable of collecting detailed and granular data for every interaction on a page. With all of this complexity, referring to it as only a “pixel” can be misleading.
- blooalien 4y ago
  For those who are unaware how this all fits together, the literal pixel's purpose is to ensure that even if Javascript is entirely disabled on the client (end-user) system, there is still a log entry at the tracker's end of things noting a time/date and IP address of document access. This is then fairly easily correlated with other logged data to further flesh out the profile of the user that data leads back to. This even works across domains, without actually visiting Facebook or Google, allowing them to still track that you've visited a site where their pixel is used, and the time/date/IP of that access. It's just one small part of their whole tracking toolbox, and the pixel itself is merely an image file, and unable to in and of itself load any Javascript. Still doesn't stop 'em from using it to track you… Only way to do that is to block Javascript and never access the pixel image itself as well. Of course, then they track you through other means…
  - thewebcount 4y ago
    > For those who are unaware how this all fits together, the literal pixel's purpose is to ensure that even if Javascript is entirely disabled on the client (end-user) system, there is still a log entry at the tracker's end of things noting a time/date and IP address of document access. Or to put it another way, even if you send the signal that you don’t want to be tracked, they will ignore it and track you anyway. They are intentionally doing something unethical and are aware they are doing it.

The article claims that the meta pixel can load JavaScript. Does anyone know if/how that's possible? I can't think of a way using an image alone would trigger downloading JS

smelendez 4y ago

It’s not a literal pixel and hasn’t been for years – it’s a js file included from a Meta site. They still call it the pixel for some reason, maybe to make it seem less potent.

iamacyborg 4y ago
I think they just used to call it the “like” button

schemescape 4y ago

I think it’s a snippet of JavaScript code and not an “img” tag, despite the name.

itishappy 4y ago

> The Meta Pixel gets its name from trackers that traditionally took the form of small, one-pixel-by-one-pixel images. These tiny graphics are embedded on websites and emails and typically collect info on who views the content. Since the Meta Pixel’s first iteration over a decade ago, when it was called the Facebook Conversion Pixel, the pixel’s functionality and tracking have grown quite expansive. Now the Meta Pixel is a mechanism that loads JavaScript code capable of collecting detailed and granular data for every interaction on a page. With all of this complexity, referring to it as only a “pixel” can be misleading.

blooalien 4y ago
For those who are unaware how this all fits together, the literal pixel's purpose is to ensure that even if Javascript is entirely disabled on the client (end-user) system, there is still a log entry at the tracker's end of things noting a time/date and IP address of document access. This is then fairly easily correlated with other logged data to further flesh out the profile of the user that data leads back to. This even works across domains, without actually visiting Facebook or Google, allowing them to still track that you've visited a site where their pixel is used, and the time/date/IP of that access. It's just one small part of their whole tracking toolbox, and the pixel itself is merely an image file, and unable to in and of itself load any Javascript. Still doesn't stop 'em from using it to track you… Only way to do that is to block Javascript and never access the pixel image itself as well. Of course, then they track you through other means…
- thewebcount 4y ago
  > For those who are unaware how this all fits together, the literal pixel's purpose is to ensure that even if Javascript is entirely disabled on the client (end-user) system, there is still a log entry at the tracker's end of things noting a time/date and IP address of document access. Or to put it another way, even if you send the signal that you don’t want to be tracked, they will ignore it and track you anyway. They are intentionally doing something unethical and are aware they are doing it.