Hacker News Reader

Comment by ihsw | Hacker News Reader

It would establish the web as a safe and secure platform, and I think that's in the best interest of the web.

To hell with your personal ambition to underhandedly monetize other people's users.

EDIT: I changed my statement from 'monetize your users' to specify 'other users' as that more accurately reflects the impact of Mozilla's change. Third-party cookies are used for tracking users that aren't yours.

View on HN

With that statement, you're also saying "To hell with YouTube, Facebook, WordPress.com and every other site that wouldn't survive without money."

Youtube, Facebook, and Wordpress.com already have their own tracking systems so they won't be affected by this change at all.

How does blocking third party Javascript prevent the sites that you mention from monetizing?

It lowers their income by forcing them to succumb to non-targeted advertising which is less effective and brings less money.

I'd love to see your ideas of a free and secure web without marketing money flowing into content provider websites.

Striving to maximize revenue is great. However, I don't see this particular issue as black and white as you present it. This will certainly make some websites less profitable, but I doubt that it would bring an end to the free web. In fact, aren't there are other ways to do retargeting?

Given Google's relationship with Mozilla, if this move would negatively impact Google, i would be very surprised to see it happen.

You are correct, it won't affect the omnipresent Google because virtually everyone has visited their domain at some point. This will target alternatives to Google, leaving us with one company to do effective advertising.

How is this in the interests of the end user is beyond me, really.

They have enough varied content to effectively provide re-targeted ads.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com