11–20 of 468 posts
a little exaggerated for fun here https://www.brandexpublishing.co.uk/the-new-procedure-for-ex...
> Today, for instance, we see that a majority of people who install an ad blocker don't actually do it to block ads (that's just an added bonus). They are actually doing it to block tracking. Is there any evidence for this at all?
uBlock origin is 2nd and rising in popularity and it blocks trackers by default.
Both they (and others) depend upon the EasyList collection of urls/regexes, etc. to block out sites and includes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, and I would say that statement is laughably wrong. Users install ad blockers to prevent annoying stupid things from monopolizing their time and space. Telling a person "if you install this they'll stop tracking you in some abstract way" is way less effective than "install this and you wont have to wait to watch youtube videos."
I don't think so - I think blocking goes for both annoying and dangerous ads, _and_ blocking trackers like facebook/google's invisible pixels. At least I run ublock origin, adguard, scriptsafe and privacy badger for maximum protection.
For a recent project I read (and translated to plain english) [1] every single article in the GDPR legislation and for our purposes it can be summed up as:
"Treat user data like names and emails as if they were credit card numbers"
AKA: be paranoid about keeping them, encrypt them, use SSL on your site, respond to requests from people if they ask if you have them, fix them if they're wrong, don't use them if they say you can't.
Obviously that's not the entirety of it, but as a working mental model I think it goes a long way.
1 - https://blog.varonis.com/gdpr-requirements-list-in-plain-eng...
> Today, for instance, we see that a majority of people who install an ad blocker don't actually do it to block ads (that's just an added bonus). They are actually doing it to block tracking. Is there any evidence for this at all?
In fact, I want to white list certain websites (a dozen or so) to continue seeing ads, but I don’t want to because I know that they are likely using Google for their ads and I don’t want Google’s little grabbling hands tracking me.
That is one weird claim. Let's count "one-time user" as someone completely anonymous -- no cookie, no login name, nothing. Let's say someone browsing in incognito mode from the freshly installed PC.
By definition publisher has no personal data about this person, so GDPR doesn't apply here, IMHO, and it's quite fair. Why can't publisher load some 3rd party tool?
GDPR articles seem to be getting some traction on HN as everyone is trying to figure out: "Do I need to do something for this? Is so, what?" For a recent project I read (and translated to plain english) [1] every single article in the GDPR legislation and for our purposes it can be summed up as: "Treat user data like names and emails as if they were credit card numbers" AKA: be paranoid about keeping them, encrypt th…
Could you make it a git repo so we can field alterations, additions and discussion?
One-time users includes all one-time visits and all the visits where people have not done anything to give you their consent. This means you cannot load any 3rd party tools. All your ads have to be delivered via 1st party means (so no 3rd party ad code) and it cannot contain any personally identifying information. That is one weird claim. Let's count "one-time user" as someone completely anonymous -- no cookie, no lo…