10 ms·

> we've been down this road already with stuff like DNT Let's not forget that Microsoft deliberately murdered DNT by making it the default value. Had they not

> we've been down this road already with stuff like DNT Let's not forget that Microsoft deliberately murdered DNT by making it the default value. Had they not made that move, there's a good chance, we'd have seen DNT honored and eventually codified. > They've already burned that bridge, I'm not inclined to keep offering them new bridges to burn. I agree, if you give them no option whatsoever, there will never be legislation reining them in. With FLoC, you could outlaw other forms of tracking and add significant fines. Without it, politicians will not move a finger over concerns to damage the industry.

danShumway 6y ago
> Let's not forget that Microsoft deliberately murdered DNT by making it the default value I totally disagree. Just going to link to a few previous comments I've made on this subject rather than rehash the entire discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24294280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24294280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24289186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24289186 It is not Microsoft's fault that DNT failed; a privacy option that can't be turned on by default is not a real privacy option. Microsoft made the decision to turn on DNT by default because it determined that most of its users didn't want to be tracked, and the ones that did want to be tracked could go turn the header off. That's a very reasonable determination for any privacy-respecting browser to make. Users should be able to have defaults that closely align with their preferred user-agent behavior. The reason DNT failed was not because of underhanded sabotage. It's because it got adoption. Advertisers were unwilling to remain in a world where the majority of people didn't get targeted. That's why I say they burned the bridge, because DNT's wide adoption was never a real option for them in the first place -- it's entire existence was predicated on the assumption that most people would not use it. > there will never be legislation reining them in We could do this anyway. We don't need to present an option ahead of time to make advertisers happy. I guarantee if you go to anyone in Congress and ask them why they're not supporting a privacy bill, they are not going to respond, "we would if better technology and standards existed for targeting." Senators and Congresspersons aren't thinking about browser standards in that level of detail. And if you're worried about advertisers lobbying, I do not believe that FLoC is going to make advertisers lobby less to block any privacy bill.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > That's a very reasonable determination for any privacy-respecting browser to make. Users should be able to have defaults that closely align with their preferred user-agent behavior. I understand this as "Microsoft produced a privacy-respecting browser and had their user's best interest on their mind", and I find it hard to engage that, because we seem to be living in wildly different realities. > We could do this anyway. We don't need to present an option ahead of time to make advertisers happy. We won't, so let's enjoy the situation we have, because change in the right direction that doesn't get us 100% of the way is bad and we'd prefer to remain where we are right now.
  - danShumway 6y ago
    > and I find it hard to engage that Fair enough. If Firefox and Chrome enabled DNT by default, do you think the outcome would have been different? Ie, do you think that advertisers rebelled specifically because they thought Microsoft was hypocritical about tracking? I don't. I don't think there's evidence that advertisers were mad at Microsoft, and the reasoning I have for that is that they stopped respecting DNT across the entire browser ecosystem, not just on IE. The other point of evidence I have is that advertisers are similarly angry about every other privacy-mechanism that gives users choice, even in browsers like Safari and on platforms like iOS. I think my theory is a pretty consistently reasonable explanation for all of those scenarios. Why are advertisers mad about iOS privacy changes? Is it because Apple is hypocritical? Or is it because a lot of people use iOS, and advertisers don't want to see widespread adoption of any privacy tools? You can find a consistent correlation between how angry advertisers get about any privacy-enhancing proposal and the number of people it would impact. > so let's enjoy the situation we have, because change in the right direction that doesn't get us 100% of the way is bad I don't think that's what anyone at all is saying. I disagree that FLoC is a change in the right direction, and I disagree that it will make any legislation any more likely. I could just as easily make the same point back to you. You're arguing that we should embrace a new tracking standard that makes privacy worse just because an arms race where browsers try to stop tracking entirely on their own isn't a perfect solution. But an arms race where browsers close tracking vectors where they find them is better than a legal status quo where browsers add new tracking vectors of their own volition. And I don't see any evidence that adding FLoC is going to make US Senators feel better about privacy bills, or that it's going to change how advertisers lobby those Senators.
MiddleEndian 6y ago
>Let's not forget that Microsoft deliberately murdered DNT by making it the default value. Had they not made that move, there's a good chance, we'd have seen DNT honored and eventually codified. I always thought this was a naive take. People would say "Of course websites and ad services will respect DNT, it's in the spec!" as if that was a magic incantation that would prevent corps from tracking you.
- luckylion 6y ago
  You don't necessarily need to rely on the spec, you can get it into law. Like GDPR. Politicians will not destroy an industry, but they will regulate it. If regulation == destruction, they won't touch it.
  - MiddleEndian 6y ago
    I suppose you could, assuming the law had teeth and was actually enforceable in a meaningful sense. But in my opinion, the idea that a flag begging companies not to track them would be respected was always a naive fantasy, regardless of whether it was turned on by default (because why wouldn't I want this turned on by default if it worked?).
  - danShumway 6y ago
    GDPR passed without FLoC though. Do we have evidence that advertisers are going to stop lobbying politicians if FLoC is introduced? Have they promised to do that anywhere?

danShumway 6y ago

> Let's not forget that Microsoft deliberately murdered DNT by making it the default value I totally disagree. Just going to link to a few previous comments I've made on this subject rather than rehash the entire discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24294280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24294280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24289186 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24289186 It is not Microsoft's fault that DNT failed; a privacy option that can't be turned on by default is not a real privacy option. Microsoft made the decision to turn on DNT by default because it determined that most of its users didn't want to be tracked, and the ones that did want to be tracked could go turn the header off. That's a very reasonable determination for any privacy-respecting browser to make. Users should be able to have defaults that closely align with their preferred user-agent behavior. The reason DNT failed was not because of underhanded sabotage. It's because it got adoption. Advertisers were unwilling to remain in a world where the majority of people didn't get targeted. That's why I say they burned the bridge, because DNT's wide adoption was never a real option for them in the first place -- it's entire existence was predicated on the assumption that most people would not use it. > there will never be legislation reining them in We could do this anyway. We don't need to present an option ahead of time to make advertisers happy. I guarantee if you go to anyone in Congress and ask them why they're not supporting a privacy bill, they are not going to respond, "we would if better technology and standards existed for targeting." Senators and Congresspersons aren't thinking about browser standards in that level of detail. And if you're worried about advertisers lobbying, I do not believe that FLoC is going to make advertisers lobby less to block any privacy bill.

luckylion 6y ago
> That's a very reasonable determination for any privacy-respecting browser to make. Users should be able to have defaults that closely align with their preferred user-agent behavior. I understand this as "Microsoft produced a privacy-respecting browser and had their user's best interest on their mind", and I find it hard to engage that, because we seem to be living in wildly different realities. > We could do this anyway. We don't need to present an option ahead of time to make advertisers happy. We won't, so let's enjoy the situation we have, because change in the right direction that doesn't get us 100% of the way is bad and we'd prefer to remain where we are right now.
- danShumway 6y ago
  > and I find it hard to engage that Fair enough. If Firefox and Chrome enabled DNT by default, do you think the outcome would have been different? Ie, do you think that advertisers rebelled specifically because they thought Microsoft was hypocritical about tracking? I don't. I don't think there's evidence that advertisers were mad at Microsoft, and the reasoning I have for that is that they stopped respecting DNT across the entire browser ecosystem, not just on IE. The other point of evidence I have is that advertisers are similarly angry about every other privacy-mechanism that gives users choice, even in browsers like Safari and on platforms like iOS. I think my theory is a pretty consistently reasonable explanation for all of those scenarios. Why are advertisers mad about iOS privacy changes? Is it because Apple is hypocritical? Or is it because a lot of people use iOS, and advertisers don't want to see widespread adoption of any privacy tools? You can find a consistent correlation between how angry advertisers get about any privacy-enhancing proposal and the number of people it would impact. > so let's enjoy the situation we have, because change in the right direction that doesn't get us 100% of the way is bad I don't think that's what anyone at all is saying. I disagree that FLoC is a change in the right direction, and I disagree that it will make any legislation any more likely. I could just as easily make the same point back to you. You're arguing that we should embrace a new tracking standard that makes privacy worse just because an arms race where browsers try to stop tracking entirely on their own isn't a perfect solution. But an arms race where browsers close tracking vectors where they find them is better than a legal status quo where browsers add new tracking vectors of their own volition. And I don't see any evidence that adding FLoC is going to make US Senators feel better about privacy bills, or that it's going to change how advertisers lobby those Senators.

MiddleEndian 6y ago

>Let's not forget that Microsoft deliberately murdered DNT by making it the default value. Had they not made that move, there's a good chance, we'd have seen DNT honored and eventually codified. I always thought this was a naive take. People would say "Of course websites and ad services will respect DNT, it's in the spec!" as if that was a magic incantation that would prevent corps from tracking you.

luckylion 6y ago
You don't necessarily need to rely on the spec, you can get it into law. Like GDPR. Politicians will not destroy an industry, but they will regulate it. If regulation == destruction, they won't touch it.
- MiddleEndian 6y ago
  I suppose you could, assuming the law had teeth and was actually enforceable in a meaningful sense. But in my opinion, the idea that a flag begging companies not to track them would be respected was always a naive fantasy, regardless of whether it was turned on by default (because why wouldn't I want this turned on by default if it worked?).
- danShumway 6y ago
  GDPR passed without FLoC though. Do we have evidence that advertisers are going to stop lobbying politicians if FLoC is introduced? Have they promised to do that anywhere?