Closed csharrison closed 1 year ago
Can you clarify what you mean when you refer to "site"?
Updated the comment, I am referring to a site as an eTLD+1 matching this spec definition: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/browsers.html#site
Hey everyone look I'm new to this I was invited in a comment to come here I promise I'm not trying to make no excuses I know this is a flag on me cause I tried to mix some some things to build a bot straight up I wanted to try something an blow a build I never had intentions on starting so I can't blow another one I can't explain it to yall I got stretched out an it locked everything up so fast I couldn't come back but I'll take any ass chewing I'm owed an if yall can break this down to me I do learn fast I just had to much going on to long an I never did the full blown development before an had no help but I don't know know what's all going on I did know that this browser was already about to start bad that fast I never did anything but look at it so if yall would please help me get out this bad stop I would REALLY APPRECIATE IT
I want to consider moving privacy budgeting in ARA to be per-site (eTLD+1), rather than a mix of per-site and per-origin budgeting. There are a few reasons to do this:
The relevant limits in the spec that consider origins are:
If we just modify all origins to be sites, (1) and (2) are tightened and (3) and (4) are loosened. For this reason, I propose we keep (3) and (4) per-origin to avoid regressing privacy. Note that this change may have a negative utility impact, for cases where a given publisher / advertiser pair is using many reporting origins which share a site. In my mind, this isn’t a legitimate use-case to achieve more privacy budget, though we're certainly open to feedback if this change puts at risk legitimate use-cases.
cc @arturjanc