Live data from Hacker News

Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

zdnet.com

11–20 of 160 posts

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#11
Online privacy remains an issue that upsets people, but at day's end, neither companies nor the Trump administration have any real interest in protecting privacy.

Does not surprise me at all.

As a very early adopter of Twitter, I have to say I thought this platform had a lot of promise at one time. Unfortunately, it's becoming a textbook case of how massive ego corrupts and destroys a product, a company, and now even a country. It started with the lockout of developers' ability to write frameworks around the APIs and is ending, naturally, with these massive political bots owning 10K+ followers, spam that always ends up on the top layer of search.

My disenchantment had been growing for a long while. Finally shut down my accounts earlier this week after they refused to offer "verification" my ecosteader account. Ten years I've been waiting it out, promoting this company for free, adding Twitter links to websites I build for customers and clients... and they do not even grant a courtesy gesture to show people that yes, the owner of these Twitter accounts is indeed associated with these websites.

Instead, like everything else on the Internet these days, it's all about popularity and ego and bribery.

Apparently, the rumor that the best way for a small company or org to get verified is to cash-bribe somebody who works there is true? If that's what you wanna do, go for it... but at least document your corrupt dollars needed and standards for bribery somewhere, so people can have some reference before they waste their time. The echo chamber and circlejerk thing has gone on for far too long.

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#12
post #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.

Not really. You could easily argue (and I would) that people simply don't value it highly, on average. You are free not to visit websites that track you, or use various other technological solutions (Tor, private browsing, ad blockers). There's not a great deal to learn about the "free market" here.

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#13
Ok, honestly, was DNT ever more than a smoke grenade for muddying the privacy discussion? The standard always relied on every single shady data collector out there to act against their core interest, facing not even the risk of detection (let alone punishment) if they don't comply, all just because you asked them nicely. You might as well carry a "do not rob me" card in your wallet.

Was there ever a honest belief by anyone (except the Ayn Rand fanboys) this could work?

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#14

My 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).

Well I guess I didn't know that!

I thought 'do not track' was on and I was OK but trackingprotection is a separate option in Firefox configuration.

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#15
post #8

My 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.

My solution is to change the DNS settings in my router to set all domains for Facebook to 0.0.0.0. So,

    *.facebook.com 0.0.0.0
I'm sure the same could be done with Twitter. This ensures that they cannot track you on e.g. a news site or any other site with a "share" feature.

But... This only works if you're willing to entirely live without Facebook/Twitter. Probably not the best choice for the majority of people.

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#16
It's interesting how Microsoft killed DNT - by supporting it.

Once they made it the default, it was all over. It was so obvious that doing so would kill DNT that I have to wonder if they did that on purpose.

It's definitely an interesting way of stopping something you don't like - support it to such a degree that those who asked for it don't want it anymore.

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#17
post #13

Ok, honestly, was DNT ever more than a smoke grenade for muddying the privacy discussion? The standard always relied on every single shady data collector out there to act against their core interest, facing not even the risk of detection (let alone punishment) if they don't comply, all just because you asked them nicely. You might as well carry a "do not rob me" card in your wallet. Was there ever a honest belief by…

It certainly isn't a complete solution, but it probably did reduce the number of ad networks that tracked you. So yes, I guess you could say it works?

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#18
post #7
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :)

I understood that DNT is pointless because no one is respecting the setting, if sites like Twitter would do it reliable, it would be better for others to do the same.

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#19
post #12
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not really. You could easily argue (and I would) that people simply don't value it highly, on average. You are free not to visit websites that track you, or use various other technological solutions (Tor, private browsing, ad blockers). There's not a great deal to learn about the "free market" here.

> You are free not to visit websites that track you

Let me just check the public registry of what companies track me and what they're tracking.

Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection

#20
post #15
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be blocking ads, but your ad blocker can't prevent the site from tracking you.

My solution is to change the DNS settings in my router to set all domains for Facebook to 0.0.0.0. So, *.facebook.com 0.0.0.0 I'm sure the same could be done with Twitter. This ensures that they cannot track you on e.g. a news site or any other site with a "share" feature. But... This only works if you're willing to entirely live without Facebook/Twitter. Probably not the best choice for the majority of people.

That assumes that all facebook ad traffic starts with a DNS request for *.facebook.com. It may be that all facebook ad traffic is served in this way _today_, but that doesn't stop them from changing it tomorrow. What about other ad networks? What about other ad networks where you like to use part of their services (eg google.com)? What about ad networks that serve their content from a cloud provider?

Blocking domains at the DNS level is a partial solution at best.

Post reply on HN