Comment by rs186
1 day ago
The article is proposing a technical solution to a business problem.
I have no doubt this proposal or any other similar proposal would work well in the 90s or early 2000s. Let's go one step further and let browsers work with all those third party website and figure all the details for sharing, and websites never embed anything.
But you see, that's not the problem. These share buttons are often trojans on websites. Facebook tracks you via those share buttons even if you have never had a Facebook account. And people come up with various solutions to tackle that -- adblockers just block network traffic, while a small amount of website owners create a separate switch which you can toggle and then share with Facebook. Isn't all of that stupid? I don't see why Facebook, Instagram will be eager to opt in to this solution and make the experience good.
Yeah, for those branded buttons on websites this isn't an alternative. They want all their JavaScript for collect information on the user, even if they don't press the button.
I believe this is to play with (mobile) browser's share button, while even there I don't get how this is supposed to work.
First: How does this figure out where I want to share to? And then: Would it have to load the shared-to page first, parse it to see if there is such a Tag and then interpret it?
Maybe I am missing something.
exactly my thought, links work fine as they are, my biggest problem with them is 9 times of 10 I don't know where they lead. Fixing one "share" use case isn't solving a misuse