I agree that there's a strong need for ad blockers nowadays. I also use uBlock Origin on all my browsers. But I'm not sure if a world that is completely devoid of advertising would... work. Advertising (in some form) is a necessary evil, I think.
Any business needs customers to make revenue and, well, exist. So any business needs to have some way to make themselves known to potential customers.
In the case of Laravel, they offer an open source framework completely for free, and pay for the development man hours through their commercial offerings, e.g. Laravel Cloud. That commercial offering is not bad: they offer a very smooth way to deploy your Laravel project. In order for the offering to make any revenue, potential customers need to know that it exists, at least. They're still free to choose whether they want to use that commercial offering, or if they want to deploy their project on their own.
Previously, making sure people knew Laravel Cloud existed was done through the Laravel home page. But nowadays more and more people "consume" a framework's documentation through their AI tooling, and they no longer visit the home page.
In a comment [0], which is conveniently being left out of both TFA and most comments on HN, the maintainer even explains that the addition was not meant as a literal advertisement, but as a way to make sure new users of the framework at least _know_ that they can deploy their application on Laravel Cloud. And they are even actively asking for suggestions on how to rephrase the addition so that the AI Tooling does not see it as "you MUST use Laravel Cloud" gospel.
Keyword is "like": a service like Proton. No idea if and what data they have offered to their government. I was merely trying to offer an explanation to the parent commenter, who was wondering how people can critique pricacy-focused services offering data when required by law.
I think the key difference is the amount of data the service can offer when it is asked to do so by some legal entity. Signal famously claims to barely have any useful data to turn over when ordered to do so [1]. If some provider states they are pricacy-focused and protect your data from governments, but can still offer loads of your private data when ordered to, that damages their privacy claim.
EDIT: "some provider like Proton" -> "some provider", never wanted to imply Proton specifically did or does this.
Could you not tackle this problem by not allowing this mingling of 'next' and 'current' variables? You would only allow a next variable to be a computation of current variables. Not sure to what extent this would limit the application of the paradigm, though.
Google: a lot, most of their services has one. However, I believe they use an OAuth (-ish) service rather than session IDs to manage authentication, so cookies aren't really an issue.
YouTube: no major subdomains as far as I know.
Facebook: aside from developer resources (which require you to log on with Facebook), none really.
Baidu: not familiar with it, so no idea.
Wikipedia: one for every language. Furthermore, the Wikipedia of each language seems to be completely separate, both in content and accounts.
Reddit: a lot. Aside from the obvious api.reddit.com, users may use <whatever>.reddit.com and the subreddit's CSS may use this info to change the looks of the subreddit.
Instagram: no idea, but I believe the main interface is simply on instagram.com.
Netflix: just netflix.com.
Twitch: as far as I know just the main domain, no subdomains.
Spotify: a few services, like open.spotify.com and play.spotify.com, but they all require you log on separately.
It's pretty mixed, with some websites having a lot of subdomains, but not all of them requiring or using shared cookies.
Any business needs customers to make revenue and, well, exist. So any business needs to have some way to make themselves known to potential customers.
In the case of Laravel, they offer an open source framework completely for free, and pay for the development man hours through their commercial offerings, e.g. Laravel Cloud. That commercial offering is not bad: they offer a very smooth way to deploy your Laravel project. In order for the offering to make any revenue, potential customers need to know that it exists, at least. They're still free to choose whether they want to use that commercial offering, or if they want to deploy their project on their own.
Previously, making sure people knew Laravel Cloud existed was done through the Laravel home page. But nowadays more and more people "consume" a framework's documentation through their AI tooling, and they no longer visit the home page.
In a comment [0], which is conveniently being left out of both TFA and most comments on HN, the maintainer even explains that the addition was not meant as a literal advertisement, but as a way to make sure new users of the framework at least _know_ that they can deploy their application on Laravel Cloud. And they are even actively asking for suggestions on how to rephrase the addition so that the AI Tooling does not see it as "you MUST use Laravel Cloud" gospel.
[0]: https://github.com/laravel/boost/pull/758#issuecomment-42589...