Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by portugee 2951 days ago
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.

4 comments

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.

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?

It's not my responsibility to help you with usability or anything else that you consider "legitimate."
Would it change your mind if the OP were doing it as a form of guerrilla advertising for those sites?
No. It's still deliberately injecting misleading data.
That's how a lot of people feel about the current state of advertising on the web.
So what? Is "portugee" your real name? I have no obligation or contract that I will "not modify URL parameters".
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!