Re:Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing anti...
by jay_kyburz on Wednesday February 03, 2021 @06:55PM
(#26020876)
Then the advertisers need to trust the first parties.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing anti...
by adriancr on Wednesday February 03, 2021 @06:57PM
(#26020886)
or the subdomain goes to an advertiser server.
Re:Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing anti...
by jay_kyburz on Wednesday February 03, 2021 @08:09PM
(#26021368)
Oh, I didn't realize a subdomain was not considered 3rd party. So soon we'll see adnetwork.mydomain.com and www.mydomain.com.
I think we should just make cookies only work when the domain matches exactly.
Re:Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing anti...
by devlopr on Wednesday February 03, 2021 @10:04PM
(#26022114)
You would see mydomain.com/adnetwork then.
Re:Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing anti...
by kmeisthax on Wednesday February 03, 2021 @11:07PM
(#26022459)
The reason why subdomains work is that you can make the root domain go to your own site, while the subdomain goes to your ad provider. If you use a CNAME it's literally just a matter of publishing another DNS recod and you're done. Moving to a subdirectory requires setting up a reverse proxy on your existing infrastructure, and keeping it up to date every time your ad network switches domains. Hell, on a lot of platforms you don't even have the ability to reconfigure the server in such a way as to proxy through an entire ad network, so you'll have to use a platform or technology specific plugin if available.
That's why the ad industry used third-party domains in the first place, BTW - it's a zero-setup solution. Subdomains are minimal-setup; subdirectories are a huge hassle.
Re:Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing anti...
by ComodoHacker on Thursday February 04, 2021 @02:16AM
(#26023332)
>That's why the ad industry used third-party domains in the first place
Another reason is ad provider doesn't have to trust first party, if ads are served from their server.
I'm not sure which reason is more important.
Re:Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing anti...
by devlopr on Friday February 05, 2021 @08:37AM
(#26036125)
You wouldn't need to. Let's say they gave you a php script (any server side processing language) you could place it anywhere and it would download new ad content and show it as a first party ad.
Easier than changing a cname.
Re:Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing anti...
by jay_kyburz on Wednesday February 03, 2021 @10:36PM
(#26022298)
Can browsers look up a different server addresses to send requests to that way? I didn't think that's how DNS worked but I'm no expert.
Advertisers can't trust content people to forward requests because it would be too easy to fake them.
Re:Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing anti...
by mikeiz404 on Wednesday February 03, 2021 @10:56PM
(#26022402)
No I don’t think so. DNS only works on the domain part of the url.
However a server like nginx can be set up to proxy requests matching a specific url pattern to another server. This would be a bit more work than adding a DNS entry and referencing that though.
Re:Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing anti...
by adriancr on Sunday February 07, 2021 @03:52AM
(#26053667)
Or setup cdn to redirect certain paths to the adserver and mark those paths as nocache
Re:Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing anti...
by hashkb on Wednesday February 03, 2021 @07:10PM
(#26020975)
Yeah... we're all too lazy to relay our data through our own backends. I recommend this to clients but there's always some killer analytics feature that requires the JS integration.