3 ms·

Depending on the user’s aims, that could still be a net win… limiting tracking to a single party versus N parties. Obviously not ideal as no tracking at all tho

Depending on the user’s aims, that could still be a net win… limiting tracking to a single party versus N parties. Obviously not ideal as no tracking at all though.

mindslight 3y ago
Normalizing VPN/proxy use is a fantastic development for the entire market. Sure, I can see a future where websites only allow traffic from naive connections, Apple proxy, or Google proxy. But I can just as likely see a future where many more "normie"-appearing providers spring up and website managers move on to some other feel-good check box besides IP discrimination.
pixl97 3y ago
The particular issue here is where many people have the same complaint about Cloudflare. You're concentrating that single party to a single provider for a massive number of people. Hence now governments have a one stop shop for all the information they need.
kevingadd 3y ago
That's assuming you can trust the single party not to pick winners to share data with and losers to keep out. With Apple we know they have a bunch of revenue streams based on selling actual products to users, so there's much less of a hazard there. With Google... who knows what they'll do to juice their next earnings report?
halJordan 3y ago
It's not meaningfully different. Nobody actually wants the data. They want to do stuff with the data and take actions based on get data. Google will collect all the info and then process it any way the 1st party asks. And the 1st party will still take the same action whether google or themselves processed it because they still get that actionable insight. That actionable insight being actioned is what's detrimental to you.
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
Depending on the user’s aims, Standard Oil's monopoly could still be a net win. - Some HN commenter in 1890s (probably)
wkat4242 3y ago
It makes that one party much more powerful and difficult to deal with in the future. Google is already at the point of too big to fail.
lelanthran 3y ago
> Depending on the user’s aims, that could still be a net win… limiting tracking to a single party versus N parties. It's actually worse in every way regardless of the user's aims. Having individual sites track you across their affiliates is much better than having a single party track you across everything for commercialisation purposes. TBH, the tech community asked for this. The support for google chrome over firefox is driven primarily by technical folk. The majority of people really don't give a damn what browser they use.

Depending on the user’s aims, that could still be a net win… limiting tracking to a single party versus N parties. Obviously not ideal as no tracking at all though.

mindslight 3y ago

Normalizing VPN/proxy use is a fantastic development for the entire market. Sure, I can see a future where websites only allow traffic from naive connections, Apple proxy, or Google proxy. But I can just as likely see a future where many more "normie"-appearing providers spring up and website managers move on to some other feel-good check box besides IP discrimination.

pixl97 3y ago

The particular issue here is where many people have the same complaint about Cloudflare. You're concentrating that single party to a single provider for a massive number of people. Hence now governments have a one stop shop for all the information they need.

kevingadd 3y ago

That's assuming you can trust the single party not to pick winners to share data with and losers to keep out. With Apple we know they have a bunch of revenue streams based on selling actual products to users, so there's much less of a hazard there. With Google... who knows what they'll do to juice their next earnings report?

halJordan 3y ago

It's not meaningfully different. Nobody actually wants the data. They want to do stuff with the data and take actions based on get data. Google will collect all the info and then process it any way the 1st party asks. And the 1st party will still take the same action whether google or themselves processed it because they still get that actionable insight. That actionable insight being actioned is what's detrimental to you.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago

Depending on the user’s aims, Standard Oil's monopoly could still be a net win. - Some HN commenter in 1890s (probably)

wkat4242 3y ago

It makes that one party much more powerful and difficult to deal with in the future. Google is already at the point of too big to fail.

lelanthran 3y ago

> Depending on the user’s aims, that could still be a net win… limiting tracking to a single party versus N parties. It's actually worse in every way regardless of the user's aims. Having individual sites track you across their affiliates is much better than having a single party track you across everything for commercialisation purposes. TBH, the tech community asked for this. The support for google chrome over firefox is driven primarily by technical folk. The majority of people really don't give a damn what browser they use.