442
“Localhost tracking” explained. It could cost Meta 32 billion.
(www.zeropartydata.es)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
442 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
38904 readers
418 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I found that odd, but reading the more technical write up (linked in the article) it seems Brave blocks localhost communication.
The Chrome proposal references a single use case. I've never seen a website that sets up my local devices, but is this a new thing?
Why did localhost not get blocked earlier? This seems like a huge hole browsers have ignored for years.
Also the DuckDuckGo exception doesn't make sense to me. Does DuckDuckGo have Facebook trackers on it to begin with? Whatever site DuckDuckGo sends you to, if they have the trackers, you'll get tracked.
Because if they were to block it, it would break lots of things, like when they broke file:// and users have no way to turn it back on except enable dev mode or debug mode, let alone having some easy way to toggle it on a per domain or per container basis..