Is my account old enough for you?

Sure, it "furthers their tracking and advertising network".

But do they track you through chrome, as asked?

Chromium has been found to phone home on a regular basis. The data (or metadata) that is sent back is most likely beneficial for Google.

I have Google Analytics on my startup's SPA when it can't even be crawled by Google due to the framework we use. The only logical explanation is that Chrome sends data back on the sites you visit.

Let's do a quick thought experiment and imagine all the completely legitimate reasons that a browser might have to call home. Off the top of my head:

* Any of the disableable features like safe browsing

* Addon code update checks (chrome web store)

* Certificate pinning list updates

* CA certificate bundle updates

* Browser code update checks

* Uploading crash reports

* HSTS list updates

* Settings synching

I also believe Firefox has analogues for every single one of these.

Just because there are legitimate reasons for sending all that data doesn't mean it's not also usable to track you or whatever. In fact, having all that data in the first place lowers the barrier to start using it for other things. We've seen that happen countless times.

What it comes down to is that Chrome sends a whole bunch of information about me to a company who's main product is serving ads. I don't know exactly what data they send or how they use it, and that in and of itself is a major problem.

In the end, sure, Firefox does the same things. But Mozilla's core business isn't selling my personal information to the highest bidder, so I trust them more than I do Google.

How many times with Google though? Of course, there are different kinds of data that may be sent too. Safe Browsing is very different from telemetry for example.

You've described perfectly valid use cases for a browser to request additional information. But I think we can both agree that collecting data for the purpose of improving a specific product that Google owns (outside of Chrome itself) is wrong.

The point is that whether there is any actual examples though.

>Everyone can easily see how old your account is

How is that relevant? Astroturfers etc have been buying old well-historied accounts for ages now, so it's not a very reliable method of distinguishing shills anymore. It's only useful for sockpuppets and amateur shills.

This kind of personal attacking is totally uncalled for here. Either their statement is correct or it is not, either Chrome is doing tracking on the sly or it is not.

Either there is proof, or there is not. The burden of proof is on the one making the argument.

So which is it?

But we are talking about green accounts here. Literally colored green usernames. Why is HN doing that if not to indicate they are new accounts?

What does the age of their account have to do with the correctness of their statements or the attempt by GP to shift the burden of proof?

I'm just curious why HN highlights new users. Why do you think they do? HN already tries to take action against "aggressive" accounts or astroturfing with ghosting them, so it seems possible because of that, that they highlight new accounts for similar possible reasons.

>This kind of personal attacking is totally uncalled for here.

If that was true, new accounts wouldn't be clearly marked as green in the comments.