6 ms·
To be fair, I think it was Microsoft who killed the DNT header by enabling it by default.
by arendtio 3y ago
To be fair, I think it was Microsoft who killed the DNT header by enabling it by default.
- Yizahi 3y ago[flagged]
- arendtio 3y agoThe 'general victim blaming' feels weird in contexts when there are at least three parties involved (MS, Google, End-Users + X)(NATO, Ukraine, Russia). And how would you call it, when you compare a technological detail like the default setting of a HTTP header with a war where thousands of humans die? Hyperbole? Metaphorical exaggeration? I think that is not a good base for a constructive discussion.
- Yizahi 3y agoA literal cartel or corporations expected to prey on the individual humans betting on the gaps in our psychology. A different corporation has bridged these gaps simply by saying out loud what individual humans actually want, working as a simple re-transmitter of human thoughts. And cartel said that "oh, since we can't win easily now, then you are at fault now" (and not the cartel who blackmailed the world in the first place). Same happened with Ruzzia. They wanted an easy win (to re-capture everything up to west Berlin again), and because of their blaickmail were quickly denied most of those easy wins, when their prey has hidden under NATO protection. They finally tried to capture whatever remained and when encountering resistance they blamed NATO. Basically every powerful sociopath, be is Ruzzia or ad-tech corpo, want to have absolute freedom of taking what they want. And any attempt to deny them something is considered a fault of the defending party.
- ajsnigrutin 3y agoHow the hell did you get from DNT headers to russia-ukraine?
- sixothree 3y agoIt helps to have an agenda.
- Filligree 3y agoGiven a boolean flag, if 94% of users would select state X, then selecting X by default doesn't seem problematic at all. Microsoft (for once) did nothing wrong. The problem is the DNT flag was unenforceable, and that's something governments should have pushed on.
- lloeki 3y agoDNT is literally the nice bit, the symmetric of the evil bit. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt But hey, clicking those "reject all" (when you can at all) does not guarantee a bad actor would comply with one's wishes either. GDPR has had every bit correct _technically_ (needs zero dialog if one doesn't track), but it could only work if these actors were honest. It turns out it reveals how bad they are. I suppose the only thing that could possibly work is legislation that would guarantee these bad actors to be sued to oblivion + burden of proof on them that they don't track.
- marcosdumay 3y ago> and that's something governments should have pushed on They did. Our current anti-tracking laws all come from pushing on that. The problem is that the DNT is way too simplistic. Browsers fail to inform the users abut it and keep track of sites independently, and the protocol fails to allow the site to request fine-grained authorizations and inform why they are needed. There's a sibling talking about P3P that has neither of those problems.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoMozilla should put a red tracker count in the URL bar. That would make people aware of how they're being exploited.
- JohnFen 3y agoEnabling it by default was objectively the right thing to do. Blaming Microsoft for its death is, in my opinion, incorrect. The ad companies were never going to allow it to be honored. The thing that killed DNT was making honoring it optional in the first place.
- RajT88 3y agoBlaming Microsoft for enabling a user-focused feature by default is a really weird thing to ding them for in the first place. Especially given all the things you can rightly blame them for.