Anolysis stands for Ano[nymized] [Ana]lysis. It's a new approach to do telemetry without sending unique identifiers (like most analytics / telemetry) systems do - but focus on goal attainment at a group level. This makes work harder of course, but it's a price we've been willing to pay. It is a pity you would take a domain name as evidence of malice. We should have a paper coming up at some point on the approach.

Self-claimed anonymous analytics have repeatedly failed in the past: you've been using this for at least two years, why didn't Cliqz release a paper before then on it? Or even explain what it is? Or a mention on your site of it? I don't want to dislike Cliqz, what it says it's doing is cool. However, given the financial incentives involved, the verify step of "trust but verify" is more essential than ever.

Seems like an excellent opportunity to apply Hanlon's Razor.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

They've been doing it for two years at minimum:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15423936

Two years and three domains with the typo? It's malice.

This malice metric is confusing. How malacious is Google then? They misspelled "googol" for over two decades, but there's only one domain. Do we count the 1e100.net as a misspelling?

How does using an odd spelling thwart user-tracker blockers?

Many ad blockers have baseline filters that block subdomains, URLs, etc. with common tracking terms in them (ex. "telemetry" or "tracking").