• Kichae@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    I guess it depends on what you want. If you want to be totally anonymous on the internet, then it’s a bad idea. If you want people to use Mastodon, then it’s probably an OK one, since the way people use microblogging is to follow famous people, and famous people aren’t using Mastodon unless there’s evidence that there’s an audience there for them to play to.

    • solrize@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      It’s less a matter of anonymity as wanting to maintain some basic privacy. If you want to tell someone where you learned about something, that’s great, go ahead and tell them. To have them extract the info from you without your knowledge is dystopian. Referers should have been banned as soon as the web became commercial.

      • nasi_goreng@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Having info “65 people visit this site from Lemmy.world” doesn’t seem to be that invasive tho.

        I can see blogger and other creator utilize this to connect with community.

        • solrize@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          The referer header tells the site which specific users and which specific clicks came from lemmy world. That’s flat-out invasive. Revealing the number of users (as Mozilla wants to do) is also invasive even if it doesn’t single out the user (of course that’s much less direct and people usually tolerate it until they become attuned to the issue).

          The thing to ask yourself when site X wants information Y is “what does X want to do with the information?”. If the answer can possibly be “something bad”, then X should not get the information unless the user opts into sending it. That is even if it’s statistical or aggregated information. Being included in the count is like casting a vote for X, which (as we see with Trump getting elected) can have significant effects even with no identification of the individual voters.