3 ms·

"They" refers to web developers. "Us" refers to users. We are the owners of the machines where their code will run. They have complete freedom on their servers

"They" refers to web developers. "Us" refers to users. We are the owners of the machines where their code will run. They have complete freedom on their servers. On my computer, I make the rules. They are lucky if I allow their code to run at all.

vidarh 3y ago
The point is that the "they" who abuse this and the "they" who use it for legitimate reasons usually aren't the same people, and so the "they" who abuse this have no incentive not to out of some concern about their legitimate uses being curtailed.
- account42 3y ago
  If "they" run ads which unfortunately most websites do then "they" are part of those who abuse the browser capabilities.
  - kragen 3y ago
    most websites don't, but google doesn't send you to those, but instead to the big ones that do
kragen 3y ago
this is of course the ideal, but it is somewhat not to the point; as vidar says, the 'they' who are fingerprinting you have only a limited intersection with the 'they' who are doing awesome things with webgl like shadertoy or https://mitxela.com/projects/model-viewer https://mitxela.com/projects/model-viewer, which doesn't even have google analytics a somewhat bigger problem is that to a very significant extent the actual owners of the machines are microsoft, google, and apple, not the users; they make the rules, and the users are lucky if the owners allow their code to run at all. under those circumstances, blocking fingerprinting is practically quite difficult, because the 'they' who want to fingerprint you and the 'they' who make the rules about what code run on your machine are the same people, not two opposing groups an additional problem is that an increasing part of the web is run by criminal elements like harvey weinstein and the rest of the mpaa, who will block you if they can detect you attempting to protect your privacy from them by blocking fingerprinting, even if apple decides it would be a good idea; cloudflare and google are perhaps the most prominent enforcers here, perhaps somewhat reluctantly

vidarh 3y ago

The point is that the "they" who abuse this and the "they" who use it for legitimate reasons usually aren't the same people, and so the "they" who abuse this have no incentive not to out of some concern about their legitimate uses being curtailed.

account42 3y ago
If "they" run ads which unfortunately most websites do then "they" are part of those who abuse the browser capabilities.
- kragen 3y ago
  most websites don't, but google doesn't send you to those, but instead to the big ones that do

kragen 3y ago

this is of course the ideal, but it is somewhat not to the point; as vidar says, the 'they' who are fingerprinting you have only a limited intersection with the 'they' who are doing awesome things with webgl like shadertoy or https://mitxela.com/projects/model-viewer https://mitxela.com/projects/model-viewer, which doesn't even have google analytics a somewhat bigger problem is that to a very significant extent the actual owners of the machines are microsoft, google, and apple, not the users; they make the rules, and the users are lucky if the owners allow their code to run at all. under those circumstances, blocking fingerprinting is practically quite difficult, because the 'they' who want to fingerprint you and the 'they' who make the rules about what code run on your machine are the same people, not two opposing groups an additional problem is that an increasing part of the web is run by criminal elements like harvey weinstein and the rest of the mpaa, who will block you if they can detect you attempting to protect your privacy from them by blocking fingerprinting, even if apple decides it would be a good idea; cloudflare and google are perhaps the most prominent enforcers here, perhaps somewhat reluctantly