3 ms·

No, the website itself does not get to declare this. There’s a master list that they have to submit their site to and go through an approval process. But as th

No, the website itself does not get to declare this. There’s a master list that they have to submit their site to and go through an approval process. But as the article details, the contents of that preliminary list is already disconcerting. The whole “Google as the arbiter of all things ads” concept is a bust. But the alternative isn’t great either - today’s system of third party cookies allows for far worse. We need some better ideas.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
klabb3 2y ago
> There’s a master list that they have to submit their site to and go through an approval process. Wtf, seriously? I skimmed the post and honestly didn’t think RWS was so bad, assuming that obviously it would be decentralized. A centralized list that Google (or some shell consortium) controls is the biggest no-no. Decades of erosion of web principles have clearly made us complacent.
JohnFen 2y ago
> There’s a master list that they have to submit their site to and go through an approval process. How is that not the website declaring it? Approval processes are meaningless. > today’s system of third party cookies allows for far worse. That's why I want zero third party cookies.
- ddtaylor 2y ago
  > How is that not the website declaring it? Approval processes are meaningless. Submitting your website to a list controlled by some arbitrary website on the Internet is very much different from serving some kind of metadata to visitors that their browsers interpret. Also the approval process existing does matter. Under a normal situation when you serve some kind of metadata (like what sites you are "related" to) there is no "approval" process to who gets to serve this kind of metadata and who doesn't. The tools to do this the right way exist in so many different ways.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > is very much different from serving some kind of metadata to visitors that their browsers interpret. Absolutely, but I wasn't positing some kind of metadata. > Also the approval process existing does matter. It can matter, but it often does not. I don't expect it to matter here because the big web players will not be denied their preferences.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

klabb3 2y ago

> There’s a master list that they have to submit their site to and go through an approval process. Wtf, seriously? I skimmed the post and honestly didn’t think RWS was so bad, assuming that obviously it would be decentralized. A centralized list that Google (or some shell consortium) controls is the biggest no-no. Decades of erosion of web principles have clearly made us complacent.

JohnFen 2y ago

> There’s a master list that they have to submit their site to and go through an approval process. How is that not the website declaring it? Approval processes are meaningless. > today’s system of third party cookies allows for far worse. That's why I want zero third party cookies.

ddtaylor 2y ago
> How is that not the website declaring it? Approval processes are meaningless. Submitting your website to a list controlled by some arbitrary website on the Internet is very much different from serving some kind of metadata to visitors that their browsers interpret. Also the approval process existing does matter. Under a normal situation when you serve some kind of metadata (like what sites you are "related" to) there is no "approval" process to who gets to serve this kind of metadata and who doesn't. The tools to do this the right way exist in so many different ways.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > is very much different from serving some kind of metadata to visitors that their browsers interpret. Absolutely, but I wasn't positing some kind of metadata. > Also the approval process existing does matter. It can matter, but it often does not. I don't expect it to matter here because the big web players will not be denied their preferences.