Agreed. If ads are served by the site I'm visiting and don't include cross-site tracking bugs, then I think that should be acceptable to most.

Speaking for myself, I've never been opposed to ads on sites (within reason - popovers are trash), because I understand that creating content costs money, but I don't like all the tracking that comes with them.

It's always fun to read comments by people who clearly only read the title and haven't clicked on the link.

I did actually click the link and read the whole Github issue thread, and the discussion here, before commenting.

But I was actually responding to the parent's comment (this is a threaded discussion, yes?) about how actual first-party ads are less objectionable than third-party tracking.

But thanks for adding your thoughts.

There's no reason code served from the "first party" can't also participate in cross-site tracking, just by using cross-site API's on the back-end to report user actions to a central tracker.

It is more technically challenging to implement. If it becomes necessary, I'm sure there will be plenty of money invested in making it easier for the content providers to participate in such things.

They are still shipping us off someplace else. The fact that they technically put their name in front of it to trick the browser, doesn't change this.

I feel like it at least makes the arrangement explicit and IMO its as much as we could ever ask for. This was always the technological trick that ad-blocking employed.

> its as much as we could ever ask for

I can ask for a lot more, don't worry.

It’s still a 3rd party doing the tracking. They are just using DNS tricks to make it look like it’s a 1st-party domain, thus defeating tracker blocking.