On the Mac there is an old app called Fluid that makes this process easier; single website browsers appear as separate applications.

Thanks for this, I would never have discovered this useful app without you. Thanks.

I keep Facebook script blocked on my main chrome instance. I therefore can only check Facebook on incognito (where script block is disabled).

The added friction of signing in every time to check Facebook has had the added benefit of stopping me visiting Facebook unconsciously. The amount of free time clawed back has been substantial!

While you're installing extensions like uBlock Origin, I would also recommend Privacy Badger from EFF. [1]

[1]: https://www.eff.org/privacybadger

Clicking "like" on an article is a action that you take only if you want that like to be seen by your friends. It is an inherently public action, don't see anything wrong here.

GP is not objecting to Facebook telling him that John Smith liked the article, too. He is objecting (I think) to the fact that Facebook knows who he is (as evidenced by knowing who his friends are), and knows that he just read that article (as evidenced by telling him who among his friends liked it).

And that is creepy, I think, and one reason I have all the good adblockers and tracking blockers and cookie cleaners that GP mentions installed, too.

If you're logged into FB and there is a relationship between the site and FB, then why is it a surprise that the site is able to id you? And when I say "you" I don't mean "John Smith from sf working for company X" but a number with some generalized demographic data attached. There are strict pii guidelines that adtech has to follow, no one really knows who you are. FB and other adtech giants need to do a much better job educating the consumer about what actually happens to data and how ad targeting works.

Most people, I submit, don't log out of FB, they just close that browser tab. So, basically, most people are always logged into FB.

Next, there is no obvious relationship between the site and FB - it's some random article on some random other site, say the NY Times, on some random, say potentially embarrassing topic. However, there's a FB "like" button, or some other tracker.

Now, the site might just get some ID with demographic data (and hobbies and what have you). But FB now knows that you read that article (how could it have told you, otherwise, that John Smith read it?). That might not be a surprise to you, having some knowledge in the industry, but I submit that many if not most people find it both surprising and creepy.

Next, your argument seems to be that with some more education people would not find it surprising, and neither creepy, because adtech is so well behaved and under strict guidelines and "no evil" and all. So, at that point we'll just have to disagree.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that adtech as a whole is well behaved or cares about user experience, if it was, ad blockers wouldn't be as popular as they are. But I do think there is also an education issue where most people think that PII is being exposed that makes it sound creepier than it actually is.

I didn't click "like". I didn't in any way directly interact with Facebook. I googled articles on loneliness, picked one, read it. When I got to the bottom without clicking anything I was effectively informed that Facebook knew and recorded I had just read the article.

I misunderstood what you were uncomfortable with, I thought you were uncomfortable on your friend's behalf that FB was showing his other friends that he liked an article.

But I'd like to better understand where you're coming from, because personally, I wouldn't be bothered by the relationship between the site and FB while I was logged into FB. If FB's algorithm knows I visited a specific site and uses that to improve the relevancy of what is shown to me in my feed, then everyone benefits. Help me understand what's creepy here?

I'm curious how you find it not creepy. Imagine every company you every interacted with spawned a flea sized drone to spy on you at all times. Are you saying you would not find that creepy?

Sure, they could potentially provide you with better service by spying on you 100% of the time. Would you accept that trade off?

I'm curious why is FB knowing every site I visit (or every site that has FB related analytics/ads/comments/like buttons/etc) embedded not creepy to you?

I get that when I visit the GAP or Target or Walmart there are security cameras. I get that they could use that info to decide how to better arrange the store. I get that they could even do something like notice what I'm looking at, put displays on the aisles and beam useful help/ads at me (I see you're looking at diapers, maybe you'd like some wet tissue on aisle 3)

But I'd find it creepy if their surveillance extended outside their store. I'd find it creepy if they could partner with every security camera with every other store. I look at shoes at Ecco an get a message from Walmart "We noticed you looking at shoes. We have lots of shoes on sale!" or "We saw you looked at jackets at Nordstroms. Your friend liked that green one you looked at".

Why is that any less creepy when I visit non-FB websites?

I don't find it creepy because no person in FB doesn't actually know it is me, to them I'm a number in an algorithm. The only way it could become creepy is if they publicly associate my name with the actions and start displaying this information publicly, but I trust them not to complete suicide by taking that action, just like I trust that my ISP won't post all my info somewhere with a history of all the sites that I visit.

Actually google just very recently changed their privacy policy to show you ads based on your bookmarks and places you surf the web on. Its started about 3 weeks ago.