sso

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-08-28

Final complete day: 2026-08-28. Attention was 0.2% — this entity appeared in 6 of 2,594 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (7 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-08-26 16:31 UTCComment

   Isn’t that just a hidden SSO?

2. 2026-08-26 07:02 UTCComment

   I actually did no expect this answer. I do not really do that anymore (from the viewpoint of developer), people end up marking spam even when they subscribed to it and there goes your sending reputation. What I was focusing on (given that Gmail is first to support it) was the whole tracking behind it, i.e. you want email to have higher confidence it's not a bot, Google gets that confidence by forcing users to e.g. provide cell number, etc. I am not sure if this (proposal) is any lower friction for a user (than SSO). Because if we talk about "being logged in" the difference for accepting SSO with that provider was one click away, here it would be no button (I presume), but that can't possibly be measurable in terms of "CTR" for this use case, i.e. people already signing up. Also I can't quite avoid feeling like this is building in an exception to what is essentially cross-site-cookie-like pieces of information.

3. 2026-08-26 05:57 UTCComment

   It's definitely lighter weight than SSO. Though that is being worked on as the Federated Credential Management API (FedCM). Email verification does use part of the FedCM spec to enable the IdP to register that a user is logged in with the browser, it just doesn't go as far as FedCM to enable actual sign on.

4. 2026-08-26 05:38 UTCComment

   They surely do know exactly what they are proposing and why. It's like lobbying against lobbyists through lobby group of your own. I cannot fathom how you cannot see this is essentially just forced SSO by Google for everyone who has a Gmail, which is almost everyone. If you as a user want this exact "convenience" then you simply use the SSO, those who do not, will actively avoid it. In both cases, the objective is the same, the newer one is just opt-in by default.

5. 2026-08-26 04:00 UTCComment

   From my reading, it requires support from both the issuer and the browser, along with specialized frontend and backend code. How is it going to work on mobile, where people usually not log in the browser? The API feels like too much complexity to take on just to support a fraction of users. Email verification is a hassle but not that much, and SSO already covers a lot of ground.