• lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Good in what sense? Firefox is already blocking third party cookies as part of its enhanced tracking protection (which you should set to “strict” level, go do that right now if you didn’t already).

  • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Kill third party everything. No more CDNs, no more tracking pixels, no more cookies, no more content from anything but the domain in the url bar.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Any CDN worth its salt can run on your domain so that’s not an issue. The issue is that no third-party anything is pointless as links will just change from nyt.adnetwork.com to adnetwork.nyt.com. I’d rather not encourage those kinds of DNS shenanigans.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Running a CDN on your domain effectively defeats the purpose of CDN.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            No. Things being on your domain doesn’t mean that traffic hits your servers.

            • Aux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It doesn’t, but it defeats the purpose of CDN, because your users still hit your domain instead of CDN one and cannot leverage the benefits of distributed caching. Browser cache is bound to a URL, you change one letter and it is invalidated.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Why would the URL change?

                It won’t share js libraries and fonts and whatnot cross-site but compared to a single image that should be negligible. At least if you don’t pull in gazillions of superfluous dependencies and don’t even run dead code elimination over them. And anyway that’s more bandwith usage between user and CDN, not user and you.

                Also I already said that it’s insanity. But it would work.

                • Aux@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Because you’re not using a CDN URL everyone else is.

                  Savings are massive for the user. If you don’t care about your users, please stop doing anything development related.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The purpose of a CDN is to better cache common resources between different web sites. For example, if you’re using a Roboto font from Google CDN on your web site, just like many other web sites do, the user who previously visited other sites with such font will load your web site much faster and will spend less traffic, because he already has this font from CDN in their cache. It also means that you save money on hosting.

          If you remove CDN from the equation, you punish yourself and your users. That’s a very dumb idea. Especially when CDNs are free to use.