Hacker News Reader

Comment by toastal | Hacker News Reader

While impractical, I liked the article's suggestion of blocking the proxies. I'm curious what reaction this would have. Ad blocking users get no content and move to alternatives and stop being users, or would the sites cave and realize having users interacting is more important than all of the data collected.

View on HN

It's a fine suggestion. If it breaks the site, then I'd call that a broken website and move on. Maybe next time someone points me there, they'll have fixed their critical issue for users who block tracking proxies.

I'm okay with not being in the target audience of sites that really want to do this. I've got enough other things to do at less hostile places that my FOMO isn't triggered in the least.

How do you identify tracking proxies though? When everything is going through the same domain you don't even know if data is being sent to Google, it's all a server-side black box.

By using Cname uncloaking that uBlockOrigin can do on Firefox. It should see that the real domain is Google Tag Manager.

I think the article mentions that Google recommends against using Cname for this, and using A records instead.

> Google recommends against using Cname for this

So use Cname? :D

Sites want the ads to get through, right? So they’re going to do the thing that makes that happen: A records.

ublock origin has actually an experimental option for this: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax#...

only issue with blocking the proxies is that you can now decide to host the container on your own infra through docker, and it's documented by Google: https://developers.google.com/tag-platform/tag-manager/serve...

I guess this is very interesting for many people, especially in Europe with the "Google Analytics ban"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com