5 ms·

> Good open rate data gathering results in you not knowing that it's being tracked At some level you know that people react badly when they know they're being

> Good open rate data gathering results in you not knowing that it's being tracked At some level you know that people react badly when they know they're being tracked, so it's important to help ensure they are not aware of the tracking. > Having said all of this: of course I don't allow images to display by default on my email provider. But I'm privacy minded and most people aren't. Which is fine, the world is diverse and that's a good thing. I love choice. You don't like being tracked. You make a living tracking others, or helping others to do so. You think it's important to not let people discover that they're being tracked. Then you rationalize it as people making the "choice" to be tracked. There may be an internally consistent case to be made that this is above board and ethical, but you haven't made it.

NicolasGorden 6y ago
> You think it's important to not let people discover that they're being tracked. How dare you sir levy false accusations against me. I NEVER said that. Please don't spread lies about me. I support organizations like EPIC and EFF. I tell people all the time in my life to support causes like these and get made fun of. It's not my clients obligation to inform the public. You can make a case that schools should teach this. That public officials should spread it. That non profits promote it. That the media should mention it more. To argue that my client producing widgets is not disclosing it further than they already do in the Privacy policy, in the disclaimers in emails and in their terms and conditions... is IMO unreasonable. The reason I don't mention "I see you are opening my emails" is because it makes people uncomfortable. Which is bad for selling widgets. Which defeats the purpose of emails to promote widgets. And people wanting widgets is why they subscribe. I do my part on my dime and my time. I'm not going to feel guilty or apologize for providing value to businesses that provide value using the techniques that are necessary to compete in the real world. If you don't like how the game works, you are welcome to support legislation that changes it.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > The reason I don't mention "I see you are opening my emails" is because it makes people uncomfortable. Oh, you're so close. Why does it make them uncomfortable when you mention it? ---- > How dare you sir levy false accusations against me. I NEVER said that. Please don't spread lies about me. Two comments ago: > So that's why you see silly emails like 'I see you are opening my email, why don't you answer' - which is insane from a marketing point of view, why creep people out? So silly. Good open rate data gathering results in you not knowing that it's being tracked.
  - NicolasGorden 6y ago
    not let people discover that they're being tracked. != not actively disclosing. One is actively hiding. The other is not actively revealing. The fact that you are pretending they are the same makes me feel you aren't arguing in good faith. You are intelligent enough to understand this without me having to highlight it, twice.
    - danShumway 6y ago
      You are similarly intelligent enough to understand that the actual person reading your email doesn't care about the distinction you're making. If you go to someone and say, "don't worry, I didn't deceive you, I just profited off of your already existing ignorance", they're not going to be happy with that answer. Either you have their informed consent, or you don't. To repeat, why does it make your customers uncomfortable to discover that they're being tracked?
      - NicolasGorden 6y ago
        Again you are being disingenuous. Which reeks of bad faith. I'm not being disingenuous at all. Users are uncomfortable being actively reminded of it in a creepy manner. The disclosure is there and Snowden made sure no one can declare themselves uninformed. People are comfortable enough with the tracking that legislation doesn't curtail it. I'm not a big player, I don't make the rules, I play within them. Don't like the rules? Work on getting them changed. Don't like my funnels? Don't sign up.
        danShumway 6y ago
        > The disclosure is there and Snowden made sure no one can declare themselves uninformed. I don't think I need to offer additional commentary on that claim, I think it kind of speaks for itself. > I'm not a big player, I don't make the rules, I play within them. Don't like the rules? Work on getting them changed. Don't like my funnels? Don't sign up. But at least on this one point, both of us seem to be completely agreed. The advertising industry is incapable of self-regulation, and there's no point in companies like Apple, Mozilla, DuckDuckGo, or Fastmail having a 'dialog' over blocking 3rd-party cookies, auto-denying permission prompts, blocking device IDs, and caching assets serverside in emails. They just need to push their privacy changes and stop pretending that the advertising industry is interested in holding itself to a responsible standard. There is no realistic scenario where tracking mechanisms are left open and marketers commit to only using them responsibly. This was Apple's mistake a few weeks ago with device IDs, where they backpedaled just because Facebook was angry. Platforms can't negotiate with advertisers, they just have to change the rules and let them complain. Ultimately, the conversation we've had here hasn't boiled down to some kind of philosophical disagreement about the nature of privacy or how different concerns should be balanced, your position is just that you're going to do anything you're legally allowed to do, and if anyone feels violated by that, it's their fault for not stopping you. That's not a philosophy that's worth negotiating or debating with.

NicolasGorden 6y ago

> You think it's important to not let people discover that they're being tracked. How dare you sir levy false accusations against me. I NEVER said that. Please don't spread lies about me. I support organizations like EPIC and EFF. I tell people all the time in my life to support causes like these and get made fun of. It's not my clients obligation to inform the public. You can make a case that schools should teach this. That public officials should spread it. That non profits promote it. That the media should mention it more. To argue that my client producing widgets is not disclosing it further than they already do in the Privacy policy, in the disclaimers in emails and in their terms and conditions... is IMO unreasonable. The reason I don't mention "I see you are opening my emails" is because it makes people uncomfortable. Which is bad for selling widgets. Which defeats the purpose of emails to promote widgets. And people wanting widgets is why they subscribe. I do my part on my dime and my time. I'm not going to feel guilty or apologize for providing value to businesses that provide value using the techniques that are necessary to compete in the real world. If you don't like how the game works, you are welcome to support legislation that changes it.

danShumway 6y ago
> The reason I don't mention "I see you are opening my emails" is because it makes people uncomfortable. Oh, you're so close. Why does it make them uncomfortable when you mention it? ---- > How dare you sir levy false accusations against me. I NEVER said that. Please don't spread lies about me. Two comments ago: > So that's why you see silly emails like 'I see you are opening my email, why don't you answer' - which is insane from a marketing point of view, why creep people out? So silly. Good open rate data gathering results in you not knowing that it's being tracked.
- NicolasGorden 6y ago
  not let people discover that they're being tracked. != not actively disclosing. One is actively hiding. The other is not actively revealing. The fact that you are pretending they are the same makes me feel you aren't arguing in good faith. You are intelligent enough to understand this without me having to highlight it, twice.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    You are similarly intelligent enough to understand that the actual person reading your email doesn't care about the distinction you're making. If you go to someone and say, "don't worry, I didn't deceive you, I just profited off of your already existing ignorance", they're not going to be happy with that answer. Either you have their informed consent, or you don't. To repeat, why does it make your customers uncomfortable to discover that they're being tracked?
    - NicolasGorden 6y ago
      Again you are being disingenuous. Which reeks of bad faith. I'm not being disingenuous at all. Users are uncomfortable being actively reminded of it in a creepy manner. The disclosure is there and Snowden made sure no one can declare themselves uninformed. People are comfortable enough with the tracking that legislation doesn't curtail it. I'm not a big player, I don't make the rules, I play within them. Don't like the rules? Work on getting them changed. Don't like my funnels? Don't sign up.
      - danShumway 6y ago
        > The disclosure is there and Snowden made sure no one can declare themselves uninformed. I don't think I need to offer additional commentary on that claim, I think it kind of speaks for itself. > I'm not a big player, I don't make the rules, I play within them. Don't like the rules? Work on getting them changed. Don't like my funnels? Don't sign up. But at least on this one point, both of us seem to be completely agreed. The advertising industry is incapable of self-regulation, and there's no point in companies like Apple, Mozilla, DuckDuckGo, or Fastmail having a 'dialog' over blocking 3rd-party cookies, auto-denying permission prompts, blocking device IDs, and caching assets serverside in emails. They just need to push their privacy changes and stop pretending that the advertising industry is interested in holding itself to a responsible standard. There is no realistic scenario where tracking mechanisms are left open and marketers commit to only using them responsibly. This was Apple's mistake a few weeks ago with device IDs, where they backpedaled just because Facebook was angry. Platforms can't negotiate with advertisers, they just have to change the rules and let them complain. Ultimately, the conversation we've had here hasn't boiled down to some kind of philosophical disagreement about the nature of privacy or how different concerns should be balanced, your position is just that you're going to do anything you're legally allowed to do, and if anyone feels violated by that, it's their fault for not stopping you. That's not a philosophy that's worth negotiating or debating with.