6 ms·

>We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform policies, as these updates have a far-reaching impact on the developer ecosystem. We’

>We believe that industry consultation is critical for changes to platform policies, as these updates have a far-reaching impact on the developer ecosystem. We’re encouraged by conversations and efforts already taking place in the industry - including within the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the recently announced Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media (PRAM). We look forward to continuing to engage with these industry groups to get this right for people and small businesses. Yes they would certainly prefer a "UN of ad-tech" that doesn't do anything rather than Apple's unilateral action.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media My guess is that this partnership is very similar to a hypothetical Foxes’ Partnership for Responsible Henhouse Interactions
- cjaybo 6y ago
  It reminds me of Gavin Belson's "Tethics" from the Silicon Valley TV show.
pwinnski 6y ago
Presumably they would also like veto power.
danShumway 6y ago
To be fair though, don't you remember how the DNT header worked really well for everybody involved, and how all these advertisers today universally respect it, and how they totally didn't abandon the entire concept as soon as it started seeing mainstream use and platforms started turning it on by default? What could go wrong if we give them another spot at the table? I mean, PRAM has already released so many good plans, like... a mission statement. But that counts! I mean, come on, it has 'Responsible' right in its name!
- sli 6y ago
  DNT just became another fingerprinting datapoint, so it ended up being better to just set it to whatever the critical mass is using (which is typically off).
- pornel 6y ago
  We've even had P3P spec that allowed users to say in browser's settings "I don't want your tracking cookies", without any consent pop-ups. It was even implemented in Internet Explorer! And then Google found a loophole in the P3P syntax, and abused it to bypass it entirely. Fun times.
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  The problem with DNT was that it was off by default, advertisers didnt support it, and that it was yet another bit advertises used to create IDs for anon users.
  - grishka 6y ago
    The only real solution is to do away with third-party cookies being on by default. There are very narrow use cases that are beneficial to the end user, but the user-hostile ones far outweigh those. DNT is based on a flawed assumption that ad tech has good faith. In the real world, though, you don't ask for privacy, you take it.
    - danShumway 6y ago
      This is the real lesson from DNT: you can not trust bad actors to be good. Every time we see these voluntary initiatives about how advertisers are going to be responsible from now on... they can't. The industry will never be responsible, left to their own devices they'll use DNT as a tracking mechanism, and then justify it by saying that they need to remain competitive. There is no such thing as a responsible advertising industry, it doesn't exist. They've demonstrated over and over again that they have to be treated like malicious actors, they are incapable of self-regulating.
- renewiltord 6y ago

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

> Partnership for Responsible Addressable Media My guess is that this partnership is very similar to a hypothetical Foxes’ Partnership for Responsible Henhouse Interactions

cjaybo 6y ago
It reminds me of Gavin Belson's "Tethics" from the Silicon Valley TV show.

pwinnski 6y ago

Presumably they would also like veto power.

danShumway 6y ago

To be fair though, don't you remember how the DNT header worked really well for everybody involved, and how all these advertisers today universally respect it, and how they totally didn't abandon the entire concept as soon as it started seeing mainstream use and platforms started turning it on by default? What could go wrong if we give them another spot at the table? I mean, PRAM has already released so many good plans, like... a mission statement. But that counts! I mean, come on, it has 'Responsible' right in its name!

sli 6y ago
DNT just became another fingerprinting datapoint, so it ended up being better to just set it to whatever the critical mass is using (which is typically off).
pornel 6y ago
We've even had P3P spec that allowed users to say in browser's settings "I don't want your tracking cookies", without any consent pop-ups. It was even implemented in Internet Explorer! And then Google found a loophole in the P3P syntax, and abused it to bypass it entirely. Fun times.
madeofpalk 6y ago
The problem with DNT was that it was off by default, advertisers didnt support it, and that it was yet another bit advertises used to create IDs for anon users.
- grishka 6y ago
  The only real solution is to do away with third-party cookies being on by default. There are very narrow use cases that are beneficial to the end user, but the user-hostile ones far outweigh those. DNT is based on a flawed assumption that ad tech has good faith. In the real world, though, you don't ask for privacy, you take it.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    This is the real lesson from DNT: you can not trust bad actors to be good. Every time we see these voluntary initiatives about how advertisers are going to be responsible from now on... they can't. The industry will never be responsible, left to their own devices they'll use DNT as a tracking mechanism, and then justify it by saying that they need to remain competitive. There is no such thing as a responsible advertising industry, it doesn't exist. They've demonstrated over and over again that they have to be treated like malicious actors, they are incapable of self-regulating.
renewiltord 6y ago