31–40 of 229 posts
Newbie question: Would it work for publishers to key off of IP address instead of using cookies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_addresses_are_not...
Why is this a bad thing? The tone of the author makes it seem like this is catastrophic. Is it?
It's bad for publishers but not catastrophic.
The tone of this article was very alarmist. The author says opening incognito is an "intrusion attempt". That's not what this means.
Using incognito mode in the browser to make it a bit harder to be tracked (without even blocking ads!) is "an intrusion attempt"? Excuse me? That's absurd language.
Monopolist news orgs are losing readership/revenue because they're terrible and refuse to change, not because of Chrome. Meanwhile other, better forms of journalism are thriving.
NYT already blocks you from reading articles when you’re in incognito.
> NYT already blocks you from reading articles when you’re in incognito hmm this is exactly what the update will prevent...
Intrusion attempt? Excuse me?
Why is this a bad thing? The tone of the author makes it seem like this is catastrophic. Is it?
So they look at this information from the publisher side.
https://9to5google.com/2019/02/15/google-chrome-detect-incog...
There are going to be people complaining about the new requirement to have an account to view content. To the publishers, you should _really_ use some kind of federated login. Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. but don't forget those who are willing to have a unique account.
At this point, publishers should probably just accept that any tracking is unacceptable, so if they want people to pay (and therefore login), then they need to stop funneling data to ad networks and other PII aggregators.