Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
1–10 of 160 posts
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#2> "DNT seemed like a good idea. By setting DNT on in your web browser, websites that supported DNT could neither place nor read advertising cookies on your device. Well, that was the idea anyway."
No, DNT seemed like a stupid idea right from the beginning. It's nothing but an "evil bit" that websites were always free to ignore (and what's more, ignore silently). I never understood the outrage when Microsoft had IE set DNT to True as default, all they were doing was making explicit what a useless, feel-good piece of nonsense it was while everyone else was just ignoring the elephant in the room out of motivated self-interest.
So, good riddance. DNT was always an attempt by advertisers to distract people from the fact that the only real solutions to privacy problems are legislative, and they don't want that. Twitter abandoning it might be one tiny step closer to broad awareness of that.
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#3> "DNT seemed like a good idea. By setting DNT on in your web browser, websites that supported DNT could neither place nor read advertising cookies on your device. Well, that was the idea anyway." No, DNT seemed like a stupid idea right from the beginning. It's nothing but an "evil bit" that websites were always free to ignore (and what's more, ignore silently). I never understood the outrage when Microsoft had IE se…
Quite the opposite, that is the reason why websites like Twitter should honour DNT.
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#4[deleted]
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#5> "DNT seemed like a good idea. By setting DNT on in your web browser, websites that supported DNT could neither place nor read advertising cookies on your device. Well, that was the idea anyway." No, DNT seemed like a stupid idea right from the beginning. It's nothing but an "evil bit" that websites were always free to ignore (and what's more, ignore silently). I never understood the outrage when Microsoft had IE se…
Another example of the fallacy of suggesting a 'free market' will lead to desirable outcomes for society at large when those outcomes are counter to the goal of maximizing profit for individual players. I believe the idea was well-intentioned, but as noted had no chance from the start without some kind of regulatory enforcement behind it.
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#6My ad blocker has a DNT they cannot abandon.
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#7> "DNT seemed like a good idea. By setting DNT on in your web browser, websites that supported DNT could neither place nor read advertising cookies on your device. Well, that was the idea anyway." No, DNT seemed like a stupid idea right from the beginning. It's nothing but an "evil bit" that websites were always free to ignore (and what's more, ignore silently). I never understood the outrage when Microsoft had IE se…
Quite the opposite, that is the reason why websites like Twitter should honour DNT.
> Quite the opposite
What do you mean by this? The "opposite" of what you're replying to isn't really obvious to me. :)
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#8My ad blocker has a DNT they cannot abandon.
You may be blocking ads, but your ad blocker can't prevent the site from tracking you.
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#9DNT made sense only in a world where there would be some sort of law to back it up.
I actually had my adblocker turned off on websites I knew at least tried to respect DNT (reddit, medium and twitter), guess twitter's getting completely adblocked now.
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#10My ad blocker has a DNT they cannot abandon.
Even better when used in conjunction with Firefox’s Tracking Protection (`privacy.trackingprotection.enabled` in about:config).