Thread | Brutkey

@mcc@mastodon.social @leo@60228.dev No, it's very explicitly malicious.

@dalias@hachyderm.io @mcc@mastodon.social @leo@60228.dev It's been added (along with <a ping>) as a lesser evil, because sites can already do such tracking via hacks (sync xhr, busy-looping, worker polling). This doesn't enable more tracking, but avoids jank caused by the workarounds, and theoretically allows users to disable it.

However, the plan failed. Since it's explicitly a tracking feature, it ended up being usually unimplemented or disabled by default, so sites that want to track keep using the hacks.

khm
@khm@hj.9fs.net

no, it failed because adtech surveillance scum will use any available resource and not just the ones the simpering weasels at w3c ask them to. only an idiot believed that they would stop doing the bad things if we just give them this one little treat.

it should never have been conceived, much less implemented, and the hacks should have been mitigated instead. it's just one of many utter failures of web standards governance.

CC: @dalias@hachyderm.io @mcc@mastodon.social @leo@60228.dev