[dec0dedab0de]

I guess you could build a tool that blocks cnames that point to other domains. But then they could switch to A records, which I guess could be blocked with lists of the IPs of tracking parties. Or just by blocking all hosts besides the one being requested (which I personally prefer in all web design). Then again they could always just put a redirect/rewrite in their web server to a any third party they want, but atleast they would have to pay for the bandwidth.

[mikeiz404]

Ya, blocking requests is a bandaid for preventing tracking.

The only way to stop this permanently is to address the root cause. As far as I can tell that would be through permissioned browser api access. The UX might become a bit unwieldy though Google’s idea of limiting the number of bits of identifying info revealed might be a way around that.

But then there is the issue of sites blocking access when more bits of identity are not given. This would lead to another cat and mouse game of tricking sites into thinking they are getting globally useful identity bits and the sites trying to counter this. This might be an easier game to play for the users where they randomly generate and isolate this data per domain or container but I’m not sure.

[varyingcircles]

(Strict OT)

hm? So the Trick of Computerpeople is simple and knowingly to block requests to prevent abuse ?

That reminds me, of the arrogant young, wanting to compete boasting at 'social' -media, keeping -critics-(crossed) 'hater' away and small, while advertising (in self-interest) for so called 'social'-media to selfish gain their own position (on 'social'-media) ?!

Heading: 'Inclusion' -so 'This 'generate and isolate' might be an easier game to play for this users' ?

'Everytime everything must be positive, not ?'

Now that was realy OT...Sry! Won't sound too offensive.. P-:

[mikeiz404]

I'm having a hard time understanding.

But from your first sentence I gather you think my comment is trying to justify the current business practices of ad driven tech companies. It is not. I fundamentally disagree with that revenue model, at least how it primarily exists today, for many reasons.

One can work at changing the system which allows such business models to exist but typically that is much harder than working within the system to mitigate some of its effects on the individual. Working to change the system typically has much wider effects while working within the system typically has much narrower effects (one must opt in) and as such some or many may be left out.

My comment is about what one pragmatically might do when working within the system.