3 ms·

There's a huge political problem with protections that are on by default, and that's that opponents (advertisers) can easily argue that they are not the explici

There's a huge political problem with protections that are on by default, and that's that opponents (advertisers) can easily argue that they are not the explicit will of the user and hence feel justified in doing whatever they can to bypass them. So this action increases the justification for browser fingerprinting and other dark tracking patterns. The same sort of thing undermined do-not-track headers. The instant they passed from being user-enabled to on-by-default, advertisers were presented with a strong excuse to ignore them.

deadbunny 7y ago
Bullshit. If I install privacy respecting software over non privacy respecting software then you have to assume I want to keep my privacy and don't want you tracking me.
- ghusbands 7y ago
  I'm not tracking anyone. But the majority of Firefox users aren't choosing it for privacy reasons, so these privacy-preserving features are not a good signal that the user actually wants that privacy. It was worse for do-not-track, as all the major browsers enabled it by default, making it not at all a signal of user preference.
  - deadbunny 7y ago
    > I'm not tracking anyone Context is fun eh. > But the majority of Firefox users aren't choosing it for privacy reasons I'd like some stats on that please. Given the market share Firefox has why are people installing Firefox? > so these privacy-preserving features are not a good signal that the user actually wants that privacy. I consider installing privacy protecting software a pretty good signal but maybe I'm being generous. > It was worse for do-not-track, as all the major browsers enabled it by default, making it not at all a signal of user preference. Seems like a pretty strong signal that people don't want to be tracked to me, if a browser impliments something as a default then it would suggest to me that they know more than 50% of their userbase would think not being tracked online is a pretty fucking good idea.
    - ghusbands 7y ago
      > I'd like some stats on that please. Given the market share Firefox has why are people installing Firefox? I don't have any stats, but I think many of the people choosing Firefox are doing so because Google is getting scary and Microsoft's offering is always warned against for security reasons, and that sums up the main browsers. In this choice between three things, you're barely getting one bit of user preference information. > they know more than 50% of their userbase would think not being tracked online is a pretty fucking good idea. Which in the mind of advertisers means the other less than 50% don't mind being tracked and so they should be allowed to track. But maybe they'd just go with any excuse. I'm personally hoping that the EU at least slightly fixes things for Europeans when it starts enforcing the GDPR with big fines. Once every site has the required 'No, you may not track me' simple button, the nags will be less irritating because they'll actually be working.

deadbunny 7y ago

Bullshit. If I install privacy respecting software over non privacy respecting software then you have to assume I want to keep my privacy and don't want you tracking me.

ghusbands 7y ago
I'm not tracking anyone. But the majority of Firefox users aren't choosing it for privacy reasons, so these privacy-preserving features are not a good signal that the user actually wants that privacy. It was worse for do-not-track, as all the major browsers enabled it by default, making it not at all a signal of user preference.
- deadbunny 7y ago
  > I'm not tracking anyone Context is fun eh. > But the majority of Firefox users aren't choosing it for privacy reasons I'd like some stats on that please. Given the market share Firefox has why are people installing Firefox? > so these privacy-preserving features are not a good signal that the user actually wants that privacy. I consider installing privacy protecting software a pretty good signal but maybe I'm being generous. > It was worse for do-not-track, as all the major browsers enabled it by default, making it not at all a signal of user preference. Seems like a pretty strong signal that people don't want to be tracked to me, if a browser impliments something as a default then it would suggest to me that they know more than 50% of their userbase would think not being tracked online is a pretty fucking good idea.
  - ghusbands 7y ago
    > I'd like some stats on that please. Given the market share Firefox has why are people installing Firefox? I don't have any stats, but I think many of the people choosing Firefox are doing so because Google is getting scary and Microsoft's offering is always warned against for security reasons, and that sums up the main browsers. In this choice between three things, you're barely getting one bit of user preference information. > they know more than 50% of their userbase would think not being tracked online is a pretty fucking good idea. Which in the mind of advertisers means the other less than 50% don't mind being tracked and so they should be allowed to track. But maybe they'd just go with any excuse. I'm personally hoping that the EU at least slightly fixes things for Europeans when it starts enforcing the GDPR with big fines. Once every site has the required 'No, you may not track me' simple button, the nags will be less irritating because they'll actually be working.