[matheusmoreira]

Couldn't agree more. I hate it when people respond to concerns with "I make money that way, how could I possibly go on otherwise" as if it somehow legitimitized their unscrupulous activity. Their profits are nobody's problem but theirs and there is absolutely nothing wrong with putting them out of business if that's what it takes to stop their abusive surveillance capitalism. If people's use of privacy-focused software and products reduces their revenue, so be it.

[AznHisoka]

You got too emotional when reading my response.

I was just asking the question because I was genuinely curious whether there was technically a way to do so w/o cookie targeting. I have no interest in doing such targeting. I was interested in whether a HNer had a creative workaround.

[matheusmoreira]

The way you asked the question suggested you were trying to find alternative methods to track people. That implies the method of tracking (cookies) was the problem rather than the tracking itself. My response to that is tracking people isn't something that should be done to begin with. People should not want to track others. It should not be possible to track people in any way, let alone make any money from the practice.

[AznHisoka]

Ok I understand. Thanks.

[ubermonkey]

>You got too emotional when reading my response.

I read a dispassionate rebuttal of your point. Calling the reply "too emotional" is not an okay tactic.

[AznHisoka]

“Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.”

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[dointheatl]

And you just responded to the weaker interpretation of his argument (which is easier to criticize) when you called it "too emotional."

[AznHisoka]

And you responded to the weaker interpretation of my argument. And so we are in a loop.

my orig response was an innocent, curious question while his was an impulsive rant/essay.

[dointheatl]

>You got too emotional when reading my response.

I'm not sure there is any stronger interpretation available here. You're baselessly speculating on gp's emotional state. That is the opposite of "assume good faith."