3 ms·
Something missed in the continual tracking/privacy discussion is the primary motivations for doing so, with the assumption that it's about advertisers trying to
by michaelbuckbee 11mo ago
Something missed in the continual tracking/privacy discussion is the primary motivations for doing so, with the assumption that it's about advertisers trying to sell you more stuff.
I'm 100% in the need for personal privacy camp, but mention this only because without addressing the underlying issues, it's hard to come up with larger solutions.
And the big issues really come down to fraud and cyber attacks:
- Years ago, the NYTimes was found to be doing some kind of homegrown fingerprinting with canvas. They have plenty of ways of doing analytics and tracking subscribers, they were trying to root out ad fraud.
- When Spotify has people every day putting up AI-generated streams and attempting to "listen" to them with bot networks, they start to look at things like fingerprinting.
- Massive credential stuffing attacks on sites are often thwarted at the technical level by fingerprinting.
- Bot traffic (and in particular AI indexing bots not respecting robots.txt) has shot up dramatically in the last year, and fingerprinting is one of the strongest ways of bot identification.
Again, want the personal privacy, but think we need to fix the professional problems to get there.
- rglynn 10mo agoI have little sympathy for the ad business failing to properly track ad fraud. I don't think the world is fundamentally better off for advertising. On the bot traffic, do we not have better ways to do this that don't involve violating privacy of free human beings? Proof-of-work captchas provide minor friction to an end-user but massively restrict the types of high-volume + low-compute attacks that would be doing this. That's just one example, I'm sure there are other ways too.