they don't "ban" domains based on this policy. they just don't make their cookies available to the cross origin requests as per the ITP browser changes: https://clearcode.cc/blog/intelligent-tracking-prevention/#I...

so Firefox and Chrome are making changes which basically limit the effectiveness of this technique.

Firefox is willing to add specific technical countermeasures to specific domains that are attempting to bypass the tracking policy: "If a party attempts to circumvent the technical solutions we’ve outlined in this policy, we may without notice add additional restrictions to that party to prevent the circumvention." It seems they use the list of tracking domains at https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protecti... .

(Safari, as far as I can tell, tries to avoid having site-specific policies, so maybe the question is "What is Repixel doing that is exploiting a security bug in Safari, and how can Safari fix it?")

It's a Facebook approved app through and everything stays within Facebook's ecosystem. Check it out: https://blog.repixel.co/2019/07/01/facebook-and-gdpr-complia...

Safari's tracking policy is in large part intended to protect users against the Facebook ecosystem (even though, yes, it is not specific to Facebook or any other domain and just establishes policies for technical behavior): https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/4/17427000/wwdc-apple-safari...

> Cross-site tracking is tracking across multiple first party websites; tracking between websites and apps; or the retention, use, or sharing of data from that activity with parties other than the first party on which it was collected.

I think that having Facebook share tracking information with Repixel and in turn with Repixel's customers counts as "sharing of data from that activity with parties other than the first party on which it was collected," no?

Where are you seeing that sentence that you quoted? I'm curious to take a look. I don't see it in the verge article that you linked to. Apologies if I'm missing something.

Sorry, that was unclear. That sentence is from the WebKit/Safari policy which I linked earlier in the thread. (The Verge article is a synthesis of the stated policy and the fact that the WWDC presentation clearly had a screenshot of blocking Facebook cookies.)

All good, thanks for clarifying! I'll take a look tonight.

To someone like me who has not used Facebook in over half a decade and finds the organization creepy, this is most certainly the opposite of a selling point.

As long as I'm seeing ads, I'd rather them be relevant. Just my $0.02. But if you're avoiding the platform altogether I get that.

> As long as I'm seeing ads, I'd rather them be relevant.

Fair enough. My preference is different. I don't care about seeing ads, and I couldn't care less if they're "relevant" or not. But I strongly object to the data collection required to target ads and want it to stop.

Sorry if this comes off as rude, but do you have a financial relationship with repixel?

That sounds backwards. If my ad blocker fails and I'm forced to see an ad, I want it to be as irrelevant as possible to minimize its effect.

So what?