Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

windowsreport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 270 posts

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#251

Post by maccard »

cardanome wrote: post #143
darkhorse222 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad you are willing to pay hundreds for that, at least you're consistent. But I think you are out of touch with how most people who use ad blockers think. People want free stuff. They are entitled. And when they have successfully suppressed the much less painful ad experience (no sign up, no credit card, works across all sites) they will be upset when they encounter sign up blocks and ask "why does every website…

I have used adblock since forever and I am absolutely willing to pay for quality content. I do actively support content creators by buying merch or funding their Patreon/Github. Subscriptions suck because it is another thing to keep track off and many business models rely on you forgetting about them. I think micropayments would be great but the problem is that you need to consume the content before knowing if it was…

iOS is great for subscriptions - there’s a list in the App Store and I trust apple to allow me to cancel them if I’m no longer using them. It’s clear whether I’m signing up to monthly or weekly.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#252

Post by joveian »

bluGill wrote: post #89
shaky-carrousel wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That nobody respects is is a false statement. Some do. Also that header permits users to signal sites if they want or not to be tracked, avoiding cookie popups. Edit: I just saw that Firefox supports GPC, which seems a better alternative to DNT.

But others use it as a signal. You are easier to track by the dishonerable with it. Meanwhile the honerable were probably not tracking as much [no way to tell but a reasonable guess]

You might be easier to track with it, but it is not hard to end up with a unique signature anyway. I can already be uniquely identified, so sending "Do Not Track" only has potential upsides. I have seen websites that claim to honor it so it seems to be doing something and I wish they wouldn't remove it.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#253

Post by ErigmolCt »

gkoberger wrote: post #67

I was at Mozilla when this was implemented. It was completely optional for websites to support this. A few did at first. A lot of people internally wanted it to be on-by-default, but the argument was that if it was, nobody would respect it – after all, what tracking platform would willingly only track the 0.1% of people who went into the settings to enable it? (Internet Explorer did eventually enable it by default, w…

I agree that sunsetting it is the right move, especially if it prevents the illusion of security

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#255

Post by ErigmolCt »

jeltz wrote: post #126
darkhorse222 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. In my experience those that block ads feel entitled to the content without payment of any kind. They see ads as an intrusion rather than a fair exchange. No, I don't see you turning it back on regardless of how things go. The average user doesn't even recognize that running a website literally cost electricity that must be paid for. Who pays for it? Who will carry the boats?

If nobody wants to pay it is totally fine if they go out of business. A lot of the be things of today's internet are caused by sites being able to live off ads revenue.

It feels like we’re still searching for the right middle ground

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#256

Post by jeroenhd »

Vinnl wrote: post #167
jeroenhd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medium supported it for ages. Tools like Matomo came with support for it by default. Firefox has implemented the replacement, Global Privacy Control. It has the exact same problems and isn't respected either, except even fewer websites have implementations that respect GPC. It's not a real solution to the normalised cyberstalking websites practice today, but it's also not entirely useless.

Doesn't GPC have at least the force of Californian law behind it?

Does it? All I've found is that it theoretically complies with California's decisions. I have yet to see that assumption make it through court. Meanwhile, DNT has the force of the GDPR behind it (https://gdprhub.eu/index.php?title=LG_Berlin_-_16_O_420/19).

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#257

Post by jeroenhd »

Sephr wrote: post #65
jeroenhd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medium supported it for ages. Tools like Matomo came with support for it by default. Firefox has implemented the replacement, Global Privacy Control. It has the exact same problems and isn't respected either, except even fewer websites have implementations that respect GPC. It's not a real solution to the normalised cyberstalking websites practice today, but it's also not entirely useless.

GPC is also a narrower signal implying a smaller subset of privacy choices.

There is only one choice being expressed by either protocol. One against data collection, the other against the sale of collected data.

DNT has legal standing in the EU, GPC has theoretical legal standing in the USA, where laws are more geared towards protecting data brokers. Removing a protocol because it doesn't work in the USA despite it being a legal opt-out in the EU is foolish; just send both headers, let local jurisdiction pick the which one is legally binding and which one can be ignored.

GPC has been standardised to never make it extendable beyond "Sec-GPC: 1" so there is no way for it to imply a set of choices in the future, without breaking backwards compatibility. The choices are limited by design.

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#258

Post by [deleted] »

HWR_14 wrote: post #246
mmooss wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought DNT was a creative solution: The only way to stop tracking is via laws or regulations. Technical solutions are, arguably, a never-ending arms race - probably a losing one for end users. DNT was a way to demonstrate consumer interest in not being tracked, and it put businesses in the position of ignoring explicit requests from consumers for privacy. Unfortunately, nobody effectively capitalized on that.

Technical solutions seem to work very well. Ad-blockers remain effective.

[deleted]

Re: Firefox removes "do not track" feature support

#259

Post by PawgerZ »

maccard wrote: post #249
boolemancer wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The average user doesn't even recognize that running a website literally cost electricity that must be paid for. Who pays for it? Who will carry the boats? Running a retail store also has costs associated with it, including, yes, electricity. Yet if I walk into a store and leave without buying anything, do I feel like I owe the store owner anything? No. That's not how that works, nor is that how it should work.

There’s a difference between browsing in a shop and reading content online. It’s much more like going in and sitting in a book shop, reading a book and leaving.

No, it's not. It's more like an online bookstore mailing you a copy of a book for free. The only catch is that they also sent a book full of ads and directions that say: after every page of the book, look at an ad. Then, when I receive these, I don't even take the ad book out of the package, read the actual book, and send them both back.

You can imagine why Amazon never decided to go with this business model.

Post reply on HN