3 ms·
> I appreciate the little humor too. Somebody going out of their way to name a file erroneously with the intent bypassing a security and privacy control I’ve g
by hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
> I appreciate the little humor too.
Somebody going out of their way to name a file erroneously with the intent bypassing a security and privacy control I’ve gone out of my way to deploy is not what I’d call humour, it’s disgusting.
- varenc 3y agoThey're only logging if the script failed to load. They just want accurate metrics on how many people are blocking the ad serving script. Personally, I want them to know I'm blocking their ads since it sends a signal to them about what I care about. It's not clear to me that all ad-block users are categorically also objecting to 1st party analytics of any sort. Most ad block rule lists don't even try to block 1st party analytics. And as I said in my comment, this only works because logging is all they're doing. If they tried to use this technique to block ad-block users it would quickly be circumvented. I understand you might not even want to signal this to them. That's why I shared the endpoint it's hitting. I want people that really don't want even this type of logging to be able to easily add a block rule. I admit in retrospect a less hidden and more obviously named endpoint would have been more polite. Personally, I really think it's a stretch to call it 'disgusting'.