[f2n]

I used to use something called UTM Mangler that would replace the referral links with shock sites. I felt that was much better than simply removing them.

Here's the github, it looks like the chrome extension linked in the README is no longer there: https://github.com/huntwelch/UTM-Mangler

[madeofpalk]

Wow, what a horrible, shitting thing to do.

I use Google Analytics for a side project site I run for the video game Destiny. I like to look at referral URLs so I can see if some publication has linked to me, if a video has been made about my site, or if there's a discussion on reddit going on that would be relevant.

I know it's popular to think about the only entities using analytics are big faceless organisations and sending them to graphic porn websites is cool, but please remember that a) they're still just humans and b) people run cute little side projects like mine and I don't want to see tubgirl or whatever when going through my referrals.

Block GA, strip referrals, whatever. I don't care. Just please don't abuse people like this.

[monochromatic]

You're not concerned about my rights. Why should I be concerned about yours?

Seriously--if you're abusing my privacy by tracking me without my consent (without my ACTUAL consent), what makes you think you have any moral claim whatsoever over me?

[platinumrad]

Just because someone violates your rights in some way doesn't mean that you can now do literally anything in response.

I agree that web tracking is pernicious but responding proportionally is important. The person who ends up clicking on that link very well may have no decision making power in their organization. There's a good chance they're some random minimum wage contractor that found the job through a temp agency. Why is it okay for you to subject them to potentially traumatic content?

[jenscow]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You really don't want to be sending offensive material out to people. you don't know who the recipient could be. The chances are it's just their job, and the decision to track you wasn't theirs.

[sincerely]

Remember how we, as a society, pretty much unanimously decided "it's just their job" wasn't a valid excuse...about half a century ago ?

[platinumrad]

There's a fairly big difference in severity between web tracking and the Holocaust.

[sincerely]

Obviously, but that doesn't change the validity of the argument

[_khau]

Why is that our problem?

[politician]

(As I asked in the other peer comment, but am curious about your reaction as well) Would it change your mind if the OP were doing it as a form of guerrilla advertising for those sites?

[madeofpalk]

Okay so sending graphic/abusive porn in place of referrer tags to every website you visit is just such a disgusting, fucked up thing to do. Like, if you do this you're objectively a bad person.

If you're doing "guerrilla advertising for those sites" - I just think you're a wanker. It's ineffective and silly.

[harry-wood]

Not "every website you visit". Every website you visit where the developers chosen to use messy URLs for tracking.

[adjkant]

Okay I don't think either of these are really that bad but in no world can you justify a bad action by saying "they made URL's ugly". No.

[matheusmoreira]

The fact of the matter is these referral links are sent to you by the user agent. As the name implies, that program is entirely under the control of the user. Just because the browser makes HTTP requests automatically when loading pages doesn't mean someone can't craft a custom HTTP request with completely made up metadata and send it to your servers.

It's not really any different from random people sending you random links over a messaging service. Would you click on any "interesting" links sent to you by people you don't know, much less trust? It's the same thing. Offensive websites might have shock value but they're actually quite harmless after you close the tab. What if it's a malware site that exploits some 0day in your browser?

[beager]

> I felt [sending marketers to shock sites] was much better than simply removing [UTM tags].

I can understand wanting to tailor your own online experience for speed or privacy. But this is petty, ugly, and vindictive.

[monochromatic]

And hilarious. And justified.

[harry-wood]

To add some contrast to this discussion, let me say that I think it looks quite neat :-) I see some folks here are quite shocked by it. Maybe using these shock site URLs (https://github.com/huntwelch/UTM-Mangler/blob/master/utm-man... ) is a bit over the top.

I was casually musing about such an idea myself a while back: https://twitter.com/harry_wood/status/735048026335682561 . This offers a way to more actively fight back against the over-use of messy UTM URLs. Perhaps a gentler thing to do would be to link to a place/places which re-educate web developers on how to design URLs. (It seems there's a few folk round here who need some re-education on this matter!)

[portugee]

I don't see how deliberately providing false data to organization is amusing here. If you don't want your web sessions tracked that's fine, but there are legitimate reasons for websites to want to understand user behavior. Some of it is for digital marketing purposes but also for usability, for example, how are folks getting to our documentation, is this prominent enough?

Seems a popular opinion that user tracking = bad but it's more nuanced than that.

[nfoz]

Browser user-agents are already lies, they already "inject" misleading data as a normal part of your web communications. Frankly, I think the fact that going to example.com means my browser could start sending my personal data to google-analytics.com and several other sites behind-the-scenes is also a "misleading" yet normal standard of web usage.

My point here is that, where you see a dishonest human communication, could just as easily have been a different convention in the computer protocol. It's pretty fuzzy where bits of data you send down the wire suddenly have real human-semantic communication impact. The Law has to make those choices, but as hackers we know that it's fundamentally a bit arbitrary, and the Law will only choose to enshrine the conventions that we -- as technologists -- have already set in course anyway.

Maybe it feels dishonest to fudge tracking info -- but to me it feels more dishonest for that tracking mechanism to have become part of the convention of how the web works in the first place. The only question maybe is what point in time are we at: do our actions precede the enshrining of the standards, or are we still forging them. Am I "allowed" to save minimal amounts of bandwidth by dropping ugly parts of URLs, or is that violating a human contract we've chosen to interpret from those bits.

My voice is to the former. The web is unstable; we've let advertising companies run wild for far too long, with the real danger that it's let bad behaviour become the norm. When this goes from social-convention into law, it's too late. But the more normal it is for software to do things differently -- express digital freedom differently -- the more time we have to build a web-convention that gives more power to users.

If they choose to interpret URLs in magical funny ways, so be it, but it's their fault for trusting silly data that silly web browsers are free to do what they want with. Hack the planet.

[bassman9000]

it's more nuanced than that.

Well, the trackers have shown none, for a long time. Now they're on the spotlight, it's all complains. Who has to shown restraint, the tracked, or the tracker?

[monochromatic]

It's not my responsibility to help you with usability or anything else that you consider "legitimate."

[politician]

Would it change your mind if the OP were doing it as a form of guerrilla advertising for those sites?

[portugee]

No. It's still deliberately injecting misleading data.

[politician]

That's how a lot of people feel about the current state of advertising on the web.

[colemickens]

So what? Is "portugee" your real name? I have no obligation or contract that I will "not modify URL parameters".

[colemickens]

Cool that no one responded and I just got downvoted. Let me just say I openly laugh at anyone that thinks I have some implicit responsiblity or obligation to not modify the URL of a website I'm visiting. Actual laughter that someone would get indignant about that.

edit: And somehow this is auto-downvoted within 30 seconds? This website is so fantastic!

[tzahola]

Haha! Nice.

We should turn this into an addon that automatically mangles every URL.

[gk1]

> Want to mess with SEO people and those marketers trying to optimize another fucking branding tweet? Me too.

Why? If you found the link interesting enough to click, why worry about it getting logged?