> The Dialogue Javascript communicates with the Sourcepoint messaging server on a subdomain of the site. The benefit of doing that is to allow messaging cookies to be “first party” and thus, circumventing Safari’s web browser Intelligent Tracking Prevention (ITP). This creates a discrete messaging channel between the publisher’s messaging subdomain and the Dialogue messaging server. Once you have created the subdomain, you should create a DNS CNAME record to direct traffic to the Sourcepoint messaging endpoint message<account id>.sp-prod.net where the account id refers to you account ID in the Sourcepoint user interface
Luckily uBlock Origin now supports blocking on CNAME records and PiHole is rolling support out for it as well. I maintain a blocklist that I use with the PiHole: https://www.github.developerdan.com/hosts/
[1] https://documentation.sourcepoint.com/web-implementation/sou...
Is there any other way to wildcard block full domains in Pi-Hole?
Look for example in your list: d41.co, admaster.com.cn, mixmarket.biz chances are extremely slim that all (current) hostnames of those type of domains are currently being blocked.
You are not able to block something like 'ads.%.adhost.com', but only (prepending wildcard) '%.ads.adhost.com', which in practice will cover almost all scenarios where random subdomains are used by adhosts.
No, it's not. Is there something wrong with their implementation?
Previously they offered "Accept All" or "Click here to enter our deliberately confusing rat's warren of options".
I wonder if the French DPA's announcement that they will start cracking down on dark patterns like this was the impetus for the change.
Just for reference (since it is obviously needed), if someone really DOES want to slam readers in the face with a popup as the first thing they see, here is some non-confusing wording:
"Do you agree to be tracked using cookies by 134 advertising companies (link to full list)?"
Two large buttons: "Yes" "No".
Yes or No. Not "Configure", not "adjust my preferences", not "Leave" which doesn't actually leave, not "Settings" which takes you to a list of all the "partners" with individual switches, no dark patterns. Yes or no.
Even worse when the switches are made in such way that you have no idea whether you are opting-in or out.
I think the logic underlying this sentiment is never consistently applied. Do we call out the people working on Tor or encryption because of how it is used by some to cause harm? Do we call out the other negative results of a person's job (tax money going to a war machine is pretty common for those in the US)? Do we call out the person cooking burgers at the local fast food joint for the effects our fast food consumption has on our health as a whole? Do we call out doctors who are members of groups that limit the supply of doctors, thus increasing prices and resulting in people getting less healthcare coverage?
What about the people who are against unions, which may be a factor in why some choose not to risk their job opposing implementing data gathering on their own website?
I am pretty sure, they thought alotabout the pros and cons of their work and decided a long time ago that the positive outweight the negative a lot. But what is the social positive in intentional programming dark pattern UI? I don't see any.
Disagreeing it is a dark pattern to begin with. For example, see how many people love opt out consent for organ donation and overlook the consent implications it has in that case. Another example is requiring email address at signup, is that actually needed and is it a dark pattern to not allow a person to sign up until they provide one, even though a more industrial user could give you a fake/temporary email address?
Seeing the data as not actually worth protecting and not having an issue with opt out or the like.
Thinking those who do care will already be using adblockers and the like.
Thinking it would be done regardless if they do it, so why burn what social/political capital they have achieving no difference when they can save it for something that might have an actual impact.
I'm sure this stern talking to really made them evaluate their life choices. We need more people on HN to take a stand like this, downvotes be damned. We all have to be the change we want to see.
As the funding dries up the community will close ranks even more so. We are already getting to the point on this forum where anything not outwardly positive (not even "negative") said about certain subjects is instantly donwvoted. Being as how downvoting is something that requires 500 karma, these are not bots or spam accounts; they are veteran members, preventing balanced discourse from occurring ("slow down").
"We have a contract with [analytics company]. They are not allowed to look at the data."
When you suggest that a contract might not be as good as physical limitations hosting it yourself give you, they follow up with something like:
"Well, then AWS/Azure/etc. could look at it!"
What I found drives the increase of tracking on the web in big corporations, is simply the number of teams, who want data. Data is used to play internal politics. And it is easier to get a new vendor in, than to get data from a hostile team.
My "consent" is being forced out of me so that roughly ~100 (at a first glance) "partners" can invade my privacy and learn about my browsing habits.
By the way, if you are a programmer and you implement those sleazy dialogs, think about your life choices.