81–90 of 107 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For which the other 475 get saddled with a bunch of extraneous downloads and invasive tracking.
The cohort that is concerned about this almost certainly runs some sort of a blocker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Visitors were twelve times more likely to click an advertisement. I would have guessed clicking on ads was rare
I work in digital marketing and I am continually shocked by the amount of people that click my disgusting ads. (nearly all advertisements are morally disgusting)
I don't click share buttons because I don't know what it's going to do. I don't want something copied that says "Check out this Thing on this Site! " because then I have to delete half of it at which point it's slower than copying the URL. If every share button had the same behaviour then maybe I would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's beside the point. I block plenty of things personally but am no less concerned about mass tracking.
No, that's beside the point. The vast majority of users do not care about this at all, while those that do care never see it due to their blockers. From the point of someone carelessly offering a convenience feature with tracking capabilities, this is a no-brainer.
I click on the share button to get the link, that I copy and share myself. And it's on my phone only, on my computer I'd just copy the URL since I'm out of an app The YouTube share feature let you pick the time to share but they removed it for some reason m..
it now is the tiny toggle at the right top.
> The share buttons got clicked 14,078 times. That’s a 0.21% usage rate, which works out to about 1 in 476 visitors. In other words, people not only click share buttons, but do it quite often?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that's beside the point. The vast majority of users do not care about this at all, while those that do care never see it due to their blockers. From the point of someone carelessly offering a convenience feature with tracking capabilities, this is a no-brainer.
"The people who care enough about the quality of the water do tend to test it, and will refrain from drinking it if it's polluted. But the vast majority of people do not care enough to go through the hassle. So polluting that drinking water for our own interest is a no-brainer."
Note that I didn’t endorse this stance, but it’s very much the calculation made in many cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cohort that is concerned about this almost certainly runs some sort of a blocker.
What about the cohort that would care about it if they were aware of it? Or the cohort that cares about it but doesn't know such things can be blocked?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The people who care enough about the quality of the water do tend to test it, and will refrain from drinking it if it's polluted. But the vast majority of people do not care enough to go through the hassle. So polluting that drinking water for our own interest is a no-brainer."
Yes, that’s pretty much literally what’s happening with a lot of industrial plants or pig farms, for example. Note that I didn’t endorse this stance, but it’s very much the calculation made in many cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is discussing "share on [Facebook,Twitter,etc...]" type buttons on websites, not share via [OS functionality or other native app] buttons inside native apps. That said, I'm curious as to why someone with enough technical sophistication to be posting on HN browses Amazon with a native mobile app instead of a web browser.
You prefer to browse amazon using a mobile web browser over the native Amazon app? Why?
Firefox for Android syncs with Firefox desktop so there's a shared history and I can easily send tabs from one to the other. It's also easy to copy proper URLs instead of shady shortlinks that often contain affiliate codes and trip spam filters. Finally, I don't want to give Amazon a foothold on my devices; the browser has a stronger sandbox than native apps do.