The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking services

Post by dbdoug » Mon, Apr 09, 2018, 11:47 PM UTC

tom_mellior wrote: post #47

slivym wrote: post #44

This is the problem with wikileaks. This has nothing to do with protecting people, or informing them of shady goings on. Wikileaks doesn't like The Guardian's reporting. So they're trying to claim that they're doing something wrong. In reality every single ad-supported website will do the same thing- including practically every website in existence from Breitbart to WashPo. So next time wikileaks sends out leaked inf…

While I completely agree with you about Wikileaks, and I do like the Guardian's reporting in general, (some of, depending on what and how you count) this tracking is a fact, and it's worth pointing out. On this particular issue, the Guardian is weaker than it could and should be. Especially because it keeps asking you (in a friendly and absoutely tolerable way!) for paid subscriptions. Would they keep tracking me if…

I pay and, as I mentioned before, when I open the Guardian main site, Ghostery only picks up 4 trackers.

Post by beedogs » Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 4:12 AM UTC

lwansbrough wrote: post #35

beedogs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that situation? Optimally. It plays out optimally. If everyone suddenly installed and ran an aggressive ad-blocker, we could strangle all of the tracking networks overnight and the Internet would become a noticeably nicer place. People who refuse to concede that allowing ads is functionally the same thing as inviting third parties to monitor your browsing patterns and invade your privacy are being disingenuous.

Explain to me how some of the world's most popular services would operate without advertising revenue?

They might not be able to. But popular doesn't mean necessary or good.

We'll survive without Facebook or YouTube.

Re: The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking services

Re: The Guardian covertly sends your data to 58 tracking services