Comment by cs702
6 years ago
Doubtlessly, this will be rationalized and justified as being necessary for, and in the best interest of, consumers...
...but inevitably, it will be used for tracking -- regardless of intent.
It might also get Google in trouble. Copying and pasting from the a comment in the OP's URL:
> Example: https://www.youtube.com - in network headers, look for x-client-data
> Now, go to https://ad.doubleclick.net/abc - and your browser also sends this magic x-client-data.
> It's a unique ID to track a specific Chrome instance across all Google properties.
> Really curious about your opinion, especially after the GDPR explicitly forbidding such tracking. Moreover, it doesn't make sense to anonymise user-agent if you have such backdoor.
This comment is unreadable on mobile. https://i.imgur.com/jFusqw0.png
Could you please remove the four-space indent? You can wrap each paragraph in * ... * if you want to italic them.
Fixed. Sorry about that. Thank you for letting me know!
No worries :)
You may give https://hackerweb.app a try! Aside: It is read only though.
I don’t appreciate your link to a third-party reader here, because you’re implying that the contradiction of HN’s style guidelines (code formatting is for code) is somehow made acceptable by the existence of an app that reformats it for only a few readers.
If I switch to an app rather than ask the person to stop, the other HN mobile users who use a browser rather than app will continue to suffer. ”Use an app” is not an acceptable choice.
> Now, go to https://ad.doubleclick.net/abc - and
It's funny that the doubleclick URL was removed by my adblocker and I didn't get what the original message was about. Now I can see it, thanks :)
Can Chrome extensions on the new proposed v3 standard remove that outbound request header?
It seems my comment may have been misinterpreted.
I meant that this will be rationalized and justified BY GOOGLE.