Relax, folks, entities have plenty of other options, there still won't be support for Do-Not-Shoot, Do-Not-Rape, Do-Not-Stone, fun for the whole family.
Don't forget robots.txt
RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
31–40 of 219 posts
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#32It’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…
On the internet, it started as the user's responsibility.
For netizens, the idea that the use should be able to opt out of logs about their interaction with the service the operator owns is novel (because they always had the option of not using the service if they found the pattern distasteful).
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#33It’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…
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.
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#34For those who only skim things, it might be worth scrolling down to read the "Editor Comments" section which is the actual article.
I bailed before that so thanks for pointing it out. I couldn't agree more, both with the point implied by the RFC and with that directly stated below.
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#35I’ve always wondered, since an RFC is a request for comment, how does one leave a comment? And who?
"request for compliance" is the alternative interpretation.
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#36I’ve always wondered, since an RFC is a request for comment, how does one leave a comment? And who?
> The early RFCs were, in fact, requests for comments on ideas and proposals; the goal was to start conversations rather than to create an archival record of a standard or best practice. This goal changed over time, as the formality of the publication process evolved and the community consuming the material grew. Today, over 8500 RFCs have been published, ranging across best practice guidance, experimental protocols, informational material, and, of course, Internet standards.
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8700.html
Nowadays you're supposed to comment before it gets to "Internet standard"
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#37Earlier 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.
> ... "it basically added a cookie banner to every every website I visit" ...
Yeah, no. Hostile advertising companies added that cookie banner as a form of "malicious compliance" with the law purely to annoy everyone like a buncha spoil't little brats who didn't get their way, so now they're gonna make everyone suffer... If we get a similar law in the USA, you can expect to see annoyances just like it (and probably worse) on sites hosted here, too.
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#38Earlier 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.
ePD in 2002 mandated cookie banners well before GDPR in 2018. But yes, point taken that well intentioned regulation can be poorly implemented and have negative repercussions.
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#39It’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…
On the internet, it started as the user's responsibility. For netizens, the idea that the use should be able to opt out of logs about their interaction with the service the operator owns is novel (because they always had the option of not using the service if they found the pattern distasteful).
There's a bit of a difference between normal logging of access to services to protect your devices / network (and to understand your users' access to your services), and using every nasty trick in the book to build extensive detailed profiles of everyone's browsing footprint across the entire web, often without their knowledge or consent (hence the laws, because it's the only way to convince some folks to not do bad things). The first should be expected behavior, whereas the second should be considered unacceptable and abusive, but has somehow been "normalized" in modern society.
Re: RFC 35140: HTTP Do-Not-Stab (2023)
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> ... "it basically added a cookie banner to every every website I visit" ... Yeah, no. Hostile advertising companies added that cookie banner as a form of "malicious compliance" with the law purely to annoy everyone like a buncha spoil't little brats who didn't get their way, so now they're gonna make everyone suffer... If we get a similar law in the USA, you can expect to see annoyances just like it (and probably w…
Not if we ban third-party ads.