Well, ad blockers are still here.
Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
41–50 of 160 posts
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#42It'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.
Sounds like a classic MS EEE[1] tactic. Except it went from embrace to extinguish right away.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#43Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#44It'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.
'so obvious' is the reasoning technique beloved of tinfoil hatters everywhere.
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#45Ok, 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…
I work in advertising,and we do respect dnt
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#46Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
"probably" doesn't lead to "yes, it works". What's the tradeoff? How many good actors does "probably" imply?
Chemotherapy will probably cure your cancer but since it isn't 100% effective you'd decline?
well, that's not what I said either, so bad on you for the false analogy. Staying in line with my actual argument and using your analogy; what is the success rate of chemo? This is absolutely a main driver in the treatment decision making process.
5%? Nah, I'll pass; I don't want to spend my last six months in agony, so it's not worth it (i.e., bad trade-off). 95%? Hell yes, sign me up. Your own analogy supports what I said earlier.
On a side note, the statement "Chemotherapy will probably cure your cancer" is also not true and shows a bit of ignorance re cancer therapies in general.
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
"probably" doesn't lead to "yes, it works". What's the tradeoff? How many good actors does "probably" imply?
[deleted]
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#49If you take a look at any fingerprinting code in the wild, ALL of them use your DNT setting as another bit to track you.
It had the exact opposite effect it intended to have.
Re: Twitter abandons 'Do Not Track' privacy protection
#50Ok, 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…
I'm very conscious of tracking and I've never bothered to check that box. It doesn't do what it's supposed to and adds another data point for fingerprinting. This and that cookie notification thing should just go away.