Adtech is kind of like the fungal domain of the web, in that it allows life to technically exist where it shouldn’t, because death is actively in progress. It recycles deathly content back to the top of the food chain to Big N, wherein it is reconstituted into cushy salaries for the people that ultimately create the infrastructure that allows endless slop to permeate the web.
RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
111–120 of 219 posts
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm registering my elderly relatives for dmachoice.org, to prevent them from getting junk mail. These clowns create the problem and then have the audacity to charge you to be added to the opt out list. I was really skeptical about the GDPR when it was passed and I am now fully on board for an American version.
I'm still extremely skeptical of it because in practice it basically added a cookie banner to every every website I visit infrequently with no particular benefit to me. I'm just going to click "yes," stop asking.
Cookie banners are malicious compliance and the failure to do anything about them is indicative as to how much the EU cares about privacy vs how much they want to be seen to be caring about privacy.
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#113> because every company out there fucking hates you They don't actually hate you. Rather, they love your money and they have a depraved indifference for you.
looks like someone just discovered that capitalism is bad for people ^^ who would have thought it...
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's gotten entirely out of hand. Most EU national government websites have cookie banners. Even the European Commission website has a cookie banner! This should have been implemented at the browser level. Let the browser generate a nice consistent UI to nag EU users when visiting websites about accepting cookies and let the rest of us opt out.
The standard for cookies should be updated with a way to include or retrieve a description of each cookie separately. Then, require sites to provide that description, and let users choose per cookie in the browser.
That's nonsense. It's not about the cookies, it's about the data collection. You can use cookies without having to use a cookie banner by simply not gathering data you don't need. And if you do gather that data without using cookies you still need to ask for consent.
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#115> because every company out there fucking hates you They don't actually hate you. Rather, they love your money and they have a depraved indifference for you.
That reminds me of the second half of this sketch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQjUh4nWwaM
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's gotten entirely out of hand. Most EU national government websites have cookie banners. Even the European Commission website has a cookie banner! This should have been implemented at the browser level. Let the browser generate a nice consistent UI to nag EU users when visiting websites about accepting cookies and let the rest of us opt out.
The standard for cookies should be updated with a way to include or retrieve a description of each cookie separately. Then, require sites to provide that description, and let users choose per cookie in the browser.
That would be horrendous and would play right into the advertiser's hands which want you to "just click accept".
Cookies should be categorised as essential and non-essential and the website should specify which laws it is considering when it categorises them as such. The GDPR definition of "legitimate interest" (which is a bit vague but it's not that hard to understand it) should be explicitly clarified so that companies can't claim that a whole swathe of shit they opted you into automatically is "legitimate interest" if they also give you the option to opt out.
At this point they can still attach descriptions to each cookie (hopefully using some standardised interface so you don't have to literally send these with every cookie, localized) and then your browser can still present you with the idiotic: "here's what we would like you to use" interface, but streamline the process with the ability to just opt out of anything which won't outright break the website.
Although this still opens it up for abuse by companies putting things like: "your preference for us not popping up an annoying full-page message every time you visit a new page" into a "non-essential" cookie to incentivise you to just accept them all.
Honestly I think we should just have Joe "Sensible Person" judge company's websites for whether they're being actively malicious in any way and force the closure of any company which is considered actively malicious along with the destruction of all company IP and liquidation of non-IP assets. All the company owners should also be banned from owning/running any other company for 10 years. (only half kidding)
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#117Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#118It’s great satire, but it really does mirror a larger societal shift where the burden of safeguarding personal autonomy has shifted from institutions/regulators to individual users. Do-Not-Stab, Do-Not-Track, whatever it might be, any sort of “voluntary compliance” is a non-starter in the face of financial pressures IMO we need to start normalizing being militant about this stuff again, to aggressively and adversaria…
Yeah and the fuss about it being enabled by default is not really relevant. In the EU tracking must be opt-in anyway. So this is expected behaviour. However the EU dropped the ball by not making it mandatory to respect this flag. If they had we wouldn't have had the huge cookiewall mess we have now.
The annoying thing is that they have regulations in trilogue that would actually make the DNT header obligatory to follow, the ePrivacy Regulation. That was supposed to drop alongside GDPR, but has instead been delayed for 6 years now. It's apparently supposed to be finally finalized somewhere in 2024, so I hope to see it sometime soon.
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#119This website appears to be part of a webring (how delightful!) made up of MtF trans people, furries, self-identified robots (some of which exclusively use third person pronouns) and sometimes a mixture of these. All appear to be some form of sysadmin or programmer.
This isn't my tribe, but I'm incredibly pleased to see a beautiful reflection of the old internet within this webring.
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#120The Do Not Track header was originally proposed in 2009 by researchers Christopher Soghoian and Sid Stamm.[2] Mozilla Firefox became the first browser to implement the feature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track#:~:text=The%20Do%... .
I wonder how many web developers actually honour Do Not Track. I do, in all the websites I've made for my employer too, but I think I'm only getting away with it because my employer doesn't know. I've even made it so that browsing with Do-Not-Track enabled also skips the cookie consent banner and just assume the user wants no cookies other than the strictly necessary ones (like their session/login cookie), and doesn'…
You're taking exactly the right approach in my book. Thank you!
I don't know if they still do it, but last time I browsed Medium I found that it claimed to respect DNT, which is quite nice. Lots of self-hosted analytics software also respects DNT out of the box and I don't think site administrators often bother to turn that off. Still, the vast majority of websites probably ignores the header, especially since it's been deprecated as a standard. If you care about such things, maybe also consider looking into Sec-GPC, its intended replacement.