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

Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

ypolicyblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#91

Post by icebraining »

donohoe wrote: post #30

I left this as a comment on their blog which I assume will never be approved: "We fundamentally believe that the online experience is better when it is personalized" Um, doing so is not impeded by DNT as that does not relate to ads. That a bit of a white-lie to imply that it is they way you've worded that first paragraph. "It basically means that the DNT signal from IE10 doesn’t express user intent." Actually I think…

How are ads not part of the online experience? (At least for everyone not using Adblock). Of course they are. Hell, many click on them!

Actually I think it does - you think your average person on the street wants targeted ads?

It depends. If the alternative is paying or not having the content, absolutely. In my limited experience, people don't really care or mind being tracked unless they can see the drawbacks in their face.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#92

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

ktsmith wrote: post #6
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Anyone who reads the default settings summary in the OOBE (out-of-box experience) in Windows 8 will be aware it's enabled.

In other words, almost no one will know. The thing is most people don't take the time to read those things they just click through blindly.

Almost no one? It's a short summary and I expect, since people have to choose between defaults and custom setup, people will read it.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#93

Post by Karunamon »

technoslut wrote: post #68
Karunamon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And you say "they" like all advertisers are skeevy and wouldn't honor the DNT flag.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#94

Post by ihsw »

pbiggar wrote: post #82
ihsw wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I'm fine with that.

Unfortunately, if nobody pays for the content, it will go away. That's probably bad (lets leave aside discussions of how high the quality on ad-supported content is, and presume that there are people who like to read it).

That seems like the 'too big to fail' argument once used in favor of the established banks, albeit simplified.

Advertisers and bankers may be unpleasant allies and we've never wondered what life would be like without them, so let's try it and find out.

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#95

Post by geofft »

wpietri wrote: post #73
geofft wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

That puts Microsoft in a bind. Sensible defaults are important; if you can guess what users want most of the time, then you should just do that. In their shoes I would have done some focus groups, spending an afternoon with people and really educating them on the details of tracking, and what the pros and cons are for them. If at the end of it most typical users would have turned it on, then this would have been the…

> Sensible defaults are important; if you can guess what users want most of the time, then you should just do that.

That is a good general rule. In the case of DNT, the header was formulated specifically with the intent that the default would be off, regardless of what you expect the user to want, so that turning it on communicates individual user intent. This is a reason to ignore the general rule in this specific case.

A good related example would be license agreements. Most users want to ignore them entirely. Focus groups would indicate skipping them. But if you make a click-through license agreement invisible, while that's a better UX, the agreement is now completely legally invalid. In order for the agreement to be valid, you need the user to have an opportunity to read it (even if focus groups indicate nobody does).

And while you expect 100% of your users to accept the agreement, the default needs to be "No, I do not accept".

Re: Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

#96

Post by wpietri »

callahad wrote: post #83
wpietri wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hilarious part is that they believe no DNT signal does express an intent to be tracked. Heads, they win. Tails, you lose.

That's incorrect. DNT has three states: True, False, and null (omitted). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_not_track_header

True, but you've missed the point. They are interpreting null as "Track the fuck out of me."
Post reply on HN