Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook adding “fbclid” parameter to outbound links

thisinterestsme.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: Facebook adding “fbclid” parameter to outbound links

#81

Post by yuhong »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #44
pipermerriam wrote: post #40

There are a number of comments here who seem genuinely happy about this. This is a perspective that is hard for me to understand, largely because I'm strongly in the pro-privacy, anti-tracking ideology. So if you are part of the group who sees this as a good thing, I'm genuinely interested to understand why you see this as a good thing and whether you view the mass surveillance of the general public by advertising co…

Engineer here: I used to be completely anti-tracking. Then, I started needing analytics for my own business. Without analytics, I wouldn't be able to sell with efficiency, and therefore, I wouldn't have a business. Granted, the anti-consumerist in me thinks maybe as a society we shouldn't be so concerned with our efficiency to sell. But, we live in a capitalist world, and I don't see that changing any time soon. The…

I mentioned before that "Thinking about it, I imagine that one instance of Google Analytics would be fine, but tying two instances of it in order to track a user would probably be ridiculous, right?".

Re: Facebook adding “fbclid” parameter to outbound links

#82

Post by lolc »

danShumway wrote: post #54
lolc wrote: post #5

So they're modifying URL? Facebook is breaking things. But sure, they've run the numbers and decided they don't care. Browsers will now have to resort to removing query parameters to prevent tracking. And websites should really use click-to-enable sharing buttons to prevent Facebook from snooping on everything.

I understand being upset about the tracking aspect, but attaching query params to a link isn't breaking anything. Of all the ways Facebook could have implemented something like this, I actually prefer it this way. Query params are easy for me and other adblockers to strip off. Imagine if they were messing with request headers or something that was harder to notice or change. An incredibly small number of sites might…

Facebook can't set arbitrary request headers easily. That would require messing with how the user-agent retrieves things. Cookies are the chosen way servers can set client request headers. So the tracking-information is passed by a cookie. Now since browsers are starting to be selective about cookies, Facebook becomes inventive.

Adding a request parameter absolutely will break things. And they knew this. The only question was what's worse: Not being able to track some people or breaking some of their links. Facebook decided the former is more important to them and their customers.

And even if nothing else brakes, uglifying the URL people are posting is in itself an anti-feature.

Re: Facebook adding “fbclid” parameter to outbound links

#83

Post by danShumway »

patrickyeon wrote: post #56
danShumway wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand being upset about the tracking aspect, but attaching query params to a link isn't breaking anything. Of all the ways Facebook could have implemented something like this, I actually prefer it this way. Query params are easy for me and other adblockers to strip off. Imagine if they were messing with request headers or something that was harder to notice or change. An incredibly small number of sites might…

I got caught this weekend where I linked an image on Facebook, and it generated the preview properly but the link is broken because the host 404's with the added fbclid parameter. I entered: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Byv5uWSIIAEf38C.jpg Facebook made: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Byv5uWSIIAEf38C.jpg?fbclid=IwAR2... So sure, there may be an argument that the server should ignore that param. But it's absolutely false…

Huh. That is very surprising to me, but I stand very corrected.

I would consider it to be pretty bad practice to treat query params this way, extra query params should be ignored. However, web standards are descriptive, not prescriptive. If enough sites have strict requirements about the number of query params, then it doesn't really matter what good practice is, and Facebook should accommodate this by moving back to cookies or at least make it opt-in or something.

Re: Facebook adding “fbclid” parameter to outbound links

#84

Post by danShumway »

lolc wrote: post #82
danShumway wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand being upset about the tracking aspect, but attaching query params to a link isn't breaking anything. Of all the ways Facebook could have implemented something like this, I actually prefer it this way. Query params are easy for me and other adblockers to strip off. Imagine if they were messing with request headers or something that was harder to notice or change. An incredibly small number of sites might…

Facebook can't set arbitrary request headers easily. That would require messing with how the user-agent retrieves things. Cookies are the chosen way servers can set client request headers. So the tracking-information is passed by a cookie. Now since browsers are starting to be selective about cookies, Facebook becomes inventive. Adding a request parameter absolutely will break things. And they knew this. The only que…

I'm less worried about uglifying URLs, and more about the 404 stuff that a few other people have posted about now. It never occurred to me that there'd be more than an extremely minimal number of sites that would error out when receiving extra query params.

That's a new one for me, I need to make sure I remember it in the future. From what I'm seeing online, it's not even necessarily considered bad practice, so... I dunno anymore.

But agreed, Facebook should back this out.

Re: Facebook adding “fbclid” parameter to outbound links

#85

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

zaphirplane wrote: post #73
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engineer here: I used to be completely anti-tracking. Then, I started needing analytics for my own business. Without analytics, I wouldn't be able to sell with efficiency, and therefore, I wouldn't have a business. Granted, the anti-consumerist in me thinks maybe as a society we shouldn't be so concerned with our efficiency to sell. But, we live in a capitalist world, and I don't see that changing any time soon. The…

The FAANGAMUs acronym doesn’t have a lot of hits, what did you add Microsoft Uber and Airbnb?

Microsoft owns Bing, one of the most important search engines and advertising platforms on the Internet...

Uber had that secret API access granted directly from Apple so it could see which apps you had open at all times (in case you opened Lyft) so it could charge you different rates.

AirBNB is similarly large, so I thought they were worth mentioning.

Re: Facebook adding “fbclid” parameter to outbound links

#86

Post by lolc »

danShumway wrote: post #84
lolc wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook can't set arbitrary request headers easily. That would require messing with how the user-agent retrieves things. Cookies are the chosen way servers can set client request headers. So the tracking-information is passed by a cookie. Now since browsers are starting to be selective about cookies, Facebook becomes inventive. Adding a request parameter absolutely will break things. And they knew this. The only que…

I'm less worried about uglifying URLs, and more about the 404 stuff that a few other people have posted about now. It never occurred to me that there'd be more than an extremely minimal number of sites that would error out when receiving extra query params. That's a new one for me, I need to make sure I remember it in the future. From what I'm seeing online, it's not even necessarily considered bad practice, so... I…

Try going to a Pizzeria and say "Pizza Margherita, with extra Zejeako please". Should they just give you a Pizza Margherita because they don't know what Zejeako is? Or should they tell you they can't do it?

> Facebook should back this out.

They won't. They knew what would happen and did it anyway.

Re: Facebook adding “fbclid” parameter to outbound links

#87

Post by justtopost »

r_singh wrote: post #45
pipermerriam wrote: post #40

There are a number of comments here who seem genuinely happy about this. This is a perspective that is hard for me to understand, largely because I'm strongly in the pro-privacy, anti-tracking ideology. So if you are part of the group who sees this as a good thing, I'm genuinely interested to understand why you see this as a good thing and whether you view the mass surveillance of the general public by advertising co…

I understand your stance from an end users perspective completely. However, it's not hard to reason why people whose livelihoods depend on being able to track users and increase the value of their ad inventory would be happy about this. People are unusually good at separating their personal interests from consumer interests. I've observed this emotion arise in many entrepreneurs first hand, be they in the brick retai…

> people whose livelihoods depend on being able to track users

Those people can go hungry or find another line of work. I have zero compassion for that behavior. Justify it how you want, but most people abhor it.

Re: Facebook adding “fbclid” parameter to outbound links

#88

Post by mtnGoat »

8ytecoder wrote: post #65
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engineer here: I used to be completely anti-tracking. Then, I started needing analytics for my own business. Without analytics, I wouldn't be able to sell with efficiency, and therefore, I wouldn't have a business. Granted, the anti-consumerist in me thinks maybe as a society we shouldn't be so concerned with our efficiency to sell. But, we live in a capitalist world, and I don't see that changing any time soon. The…

I'd be completely ok with intent based advertising - I search for $X you show ads that are related to $X. And I'm ok with measuring what percentage of those who click the ad that converts as well. However, that's not where we are today. The appetite for marketing and advertisement has grown to such a level that companies like Facebook want to know every aspect of your life so they can satisfy that appetite. Clearly a…

and those companies arent just selling that gathered data to online marketers, they are pairing it with offline data and selling it anyone with enough money.

Re: Facebook adding “fbclid” parameter to outbound links

#89

Post by citrablue »

guntars wrote: post #76
citrablue wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are concerned with making a better product, you are going to need quite a bit of tracking and instrumentation to understand how to make a better product.

Using analytics to understand what users are thinking is like using tea leaves to divine the future. Just ask them.

Users will give you the preferences that they think are important. Or are important at the point of that interview.

Analytics can give you a decent glimpse of revealed preferences, which may or may not be what you're after.

Whether or not this is a good thing, depends on a lot of subjectivity, sure. But suppose you run a porn site - if you asked most users what they wanted in porn (before they had seen any), they would probably say one thing. If you examine what kinds of videos people look at, you'll see another. (This theme, with actual data from pornhub, is explored at length in the book "Everybody Lies" by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz.)

Both routes (asking and instrumenting) have their uses.

Re: Facebook adding “fbclid” parameter to outbound links

#90

Post by guntars »

citrablue wrote: post #89
guntars wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using analytics to understand what users are thinking is like using tea leaves to divine the future. Just ask them.

Users will give you the preferences that they think are important. Or are important at the point of that interview. Analytics can give you a decent glimpse of revealed preferences, which may or may not be what you're after. Whether or not this is a good thing, depends on a lot of subjectivity, sure. But suppose you run a porn site - if you asked most users what they wanted in porn (before they had seen any), they wou…

Glad you brought up porn because I believe that if you optimized any site's features just based on engagement analytics, you'd end up with a porn site with elements of gambling!

I'm kidding of course, but the idea is that analytics tell you a part off the user story, but doesn't answer the deeper "why" questions. It certainly has a place in tech, but it's less than what it's currently afforded.

Post reply on HN