No comments on the post? Hmm... I'm curious what they are getting but haven't approved.
Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"
61–70 of 96 posts
Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other words meaning they're not going to support it... "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" is not really supporting DNT. It really shows they're business model depends on people being computer illiterate. And now that DNT is on by default they're revolting because they know few people will ever go out of their way to opt-in and get tracked.
> "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" No, they are only going to support it if it is _actually_ the users intent, not a vendors intent. This is completely reasonable and the actions of MS are undermining the efforts to get this voluntary standard going. Keep in mind, DNT is completely voluntary.
[deleted]
Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"
#63In all the comments here, I can't find anybody who thinks that Yahoo is doing the right thing here. Well, I do. I think what Yahoo is doing is the right thing for them, for their users, and for the web.
If the web is going to be ad supported, then its going to have to be targeted advertising or its going to be both shit and annoying. Remember "punch the monkey", or ads that took over the entire screen? Now, through tracking, we are able to get really really good ads - things you might even be interested to see and buy.
If DNT was supported by everybody and on by default, that's the end of online advertising in its current form. So we can choose from the following options: ignore DNT, ignore DNT for IE10, or go back to non-targeted advertising.
Let's assume the last of those, which leads us to the following options: revert to shit ads, make users pay for content directly, or pack up your content-producing company and go home. None of these are best for the users or the web.
The DNT founders know this - that's why it was default null in the spec and in Firefox. IE10 is doing this deliberately even though they know it can't work, and there are choices here: they are trying to improve the world but are incredibly wonderfully naive, they want to undermine Google, or they want to undermine DNT. I'd love to believe its the first, but no-one has ever claimed that about MS.
Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other words meaning they're not going to support it... "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" is not really supporting DNT. It really shows they're business model depends on people being computer illiterate. And now that DNT is on by default they're revolting because they know few people will ever go out of their way to opt-in and get tracked.
> "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" No, they are only going to support it if it is _actually_ the users intent, not a vendors intent. This is completely reasonable and the actions of MS are undermining the efforts to get this voluntary standard going. Keep in mind, DNT is completely voluntary.
You can waffle all you want about user intent, but it's quite obvious that they will only support an opt-out scheme.
Advertising almost never implement opt-in unless legally forced to.
Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think rather than squabbling about DNT, browser vendors should be taking much more aggressive, technical steps to make tracking users harder Exactly. Do Not Track is unenforceable. We need Cannot Track.
You already have it. Use the following Chrome extensions: NoScript, AdBlock, Ghostery and Do Not Track Plus. There's no sense in relying in any of the large companies to voluntarily give up ad revenue, you need to take matters in to your own hands.
AdBlock and Ghostery are great and fairly noninvasive. You can also add BetterPrivacy or RefControl, though that last one can cause some breakage.
NoScript however makes the web completely unusable for large majority of regular people and frustrating for almost everyone else.
Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"
#66I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that users intend to not be tracked by the very large number of third parties they are involuntarily exposed to on the web. Yahoo are resorting to this whole buzzword-laden meaningless rhetoric around ~user experience~ and ~value proposition~. That just reinforces the impression that the only reason anyone was prepared to go along with DNT was that they assumed that 99% of…
While it is reasonable to assume a user's intent, it is also reasonable to assume a content publisher's intent to monetize their content. An advertising-funded web is the reality of today, unless Microsoft is proposing a radical change in this model. The concept of Do Not Track, despite the emotional appeal of the name, essentially seems to be a compromise between privacy and advertising, keeping the advertising-base…
Your theory appears to be that the minority of privacy-focused individuals are weird outliers in preference. but my impression is that they are weird outliers in knowledge.
When I talk with non-technical relatives about their internet use, privacy is a major issue for them.
They know, for example, that Facebook knows a lot about them, which scares them. They don't know how much ad providers track them, but if you tell them they're more scared. Facebook is at least a known entity that provides them some benefit. Shadowy private companies profiling them is a lot harder to get comfortable with.
Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"
#67> Recently, Microsoft unilaterally decided to turn on DNT in Internet Explorer 10 by default, rather than at users’ direction. > It basically means that the DNT signal from IE10 doesn’t express user intent. Blatantly false. Not only are you presented with the option to turn off DNT on first use (that takes up the entire screen), but I'd imagine users would choose to have advertisers track them about 1-10% of the time…
The hilarious part is that they believe no DNT signal does express an intent to be tracked. Heads, they win. Tails, you lose.
Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Advertising companies can be shameless. What makes you think they ever would have respected DNT even if was opt-out?
They support the NAI which enables you to turn off various tracking bits. Let's not go around shitting on a whole type of business wholesale because of a few bad actors, hm?
You say "they" like all advertisers support this initiative. They don't. I was careful not to include all.
I can assure you that not everyone will follow it. Google is a part of NAI and they were found guilty by the FTC to be circumventing Safari preferences.
Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"
#69I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that users intend to not be tracked by the very large number of third parties they are involuntarily exposed to on the web. Yahoo are resorting to this whole buzzword-laden meaningless rhetoric around ~user experience~ and ~value proposition~. That just reinforces the impression that the only reason anyone was prepared to go along with DNT was that they assumed that 99% of…
> the benefits of the DNT scheme
The benefit of the DNT scheme was to kill the lie that most users don't care. If 99% of users take positive action to change a default and say "Don't track me", it's believable. If a browser vendor says this, it's not.
Bear in mind that Do Not Track has _zero_ technical merit; it's equivalent to the "evil bit" prank RFC. Any merit it has must be political.
The value in DNT was going to be that we could convince advertisers that normal users do, in fact, care, and do, in fact, not want to be tracked. IE's decision is squandering what DNT attempts to communicate, and squandering that value. And so when you see advertisers _and_ web server developers rejecting IE 10's DNT indicator, that doesn't mean that the advertisers or web server developers are bad people -- that just means that you lost the politics.
Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think rather than squabbling about DNT, browser vendors should be taking much more aggressive, technical steps to make tracking users harder Exactly. Do Not Track is unenforceable. We need Cannot Track.
You already have it. Use the following Chrome extensions: NoScript, AdBlock, Ghostery and Do Not Track Plus. There's no sense in relying in any of the large companies to voluntarily give up ad revenue, you need to take matters in to your own hands.
Can't you also change your cookie settings to require your to accept any cookie that wants to be set? I think we'd see less cookie abuse these days if 10 years ago browsers defaulted to asking users to store cookies. You can also disable all third-party cookies, which can help minimize tracking also.