[jaywalk]

No, it's a legitimate question. There is literally nothing you can do to stop a website from logging your visit, so I don't understand your argument here. Visit logging (what Plausible does) and tracking (what Google Analytics does) are two very different things.

[pgl]

Plausible is a third party that logs visits for analytics purposes. An end user expresses their preference (eg, with some sort of blocking browser extension) that the site doesn't send details off to a third party. Then the analytics service provides an easy way to work around this preference, and if that's blocked again then they provide another way, etc. They explicitly work around the end user's choice.

Why does it matter what the reason is for the end user's preference? Or if the data is being stored in a way that's currently difficult to deobfuscate? It's ironic that the whole push is "end user privacy", ie something that benefits the end user, but multiple workarounds are offered when the end user (for whatever reason) doesn't want their visits logged on a third party.

[jaywalk]

Saying that using an ad blocker equals a user expressing their preference to not have their visit logged to a third party is a pretty weak connection.

As long as none of your personal data is involved, it's not your data. It belongs to the website operator, and they can do with it what they please.

[pgl]

(Why is it these kinds of discussions get snotty so quickly?)

I don't know how else an end user can express their preference.

IP addresses are PII under the GDPR with enough context - although honestly I don't want to go down that horrible rabbit hole.

But sure, sure, the site operators can do whatever they please. It's just Plausible banging on about being privacy friendly and ethical seems a bit ironic and is frustrating to see.

Edit: The DNT flag is explicitly ignored by Plausible as well: https://github.com/plausible/analytics/discussions/646

[jaywalk]

Plausible is correct in ignoring the DNT flag, as it does not apply to the data they collect. Have you read the DNT policy that the EFF created, which is linked in that issue? It goes further than what the W3C defined, and it still does not apply to the data Plausible collects. In fact, it explicitly allows the collection of more data than Plausible actually collects.

You're really stretching definitions here, and have yet to make an actual argument about how Plausible invades your privacy. I'll just end my involvement in this discussion here, because it's clear to me that it will not be productive.

[pgl]

Okey dokey