10 ms·

Yahoo to ignore IE10's "Do Not Track"

80 points by jakeludington 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ajays 14y ago
The only reason Microsoft is making DNT the default is because it will directly impact Google's bottom line (and Microsoft loses money in its online division, so they won't hurt as much). Since when did Microsoft really start caring about the users?
tvladeck 14y ago
They key thing to understand is that if IE10 did not have DNT enabled, that the default setting would be _just as arbitrary_ and would still therefore not "map to user intent" in their words. There has to be a default in one direction or the other. That, and many users will use IE10 knowing that it ships with DNT pre-enabled. To ignore this is totally immoral and unethical. This is totally shameful.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  Yeah. Anyone who reads the default settings summary in the OOBE (out-of-box experience) in Windows 8 will be aware it's enabled.
  - ktsmith 14y ago
    In other words, almost no one will know. The thing is most people don't take the time to read those things they just click through blindly.
    - gergles 14y ago
      Yet somehow software developers are quick to screech that users agreed to 'license agreements' that have the same weight, right? (Words on a screen that everyone just 'clicks through blindly'.) You can't have it both ways. Either having something show up and clicking next manifests consent or it doesn't. IE is extremely clear that DNT will be turned on and lets you opt out of doing so. Users are expressing intent by using the default settings; it isn't like it's a hidden default that they don't tell anyone about.
      - thezilch 14y ago
        Somehow you replaced "lawyers" with "software developers," right?
      - ktsmith 14y ago
        I don't know any developers that believe that however I've met many managers and attorneys that believe it. Common industry practices should be laid at the feet of those responsible. Beyond licensing agreements though, people won't read instructions, disclaimers, warnings, etc. It's not just one thing, and when designing things at work one of our common points to try and make things more clear includes "people don't read" so how can we improve this.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
      Almost no one? It's a short summary and I expect, since people have to choose between defaults and custom setup, people will read it.
- ktsmith 14y ago
  >They key thing to understand is that if IE10 did not have DNT enabled, that the default setting would be _just as arbitrary_ and would still therefore not "map to user intent" in their words. There has to be a default in one direction or the other. The default is to send a null value in the header meaning that no intent has been expressed, that's not arbitrary. > That, and many users will use IE10 knowing that it ships with DNT pre-enabled. To ignore this is totally immoral and unethical. This is totally shameful. Most users will have no idea what DNT is, nor will they bother to switch the flag. MS setting it to do not track by default undermines the effort being put into the standard. No one is going to comply with a voluntary standard if one of the largest browser vendors turns it on by default.
  - tvladeck 14y ago
    > The default is to send a null value in the header meaning that no intent has been expressed, that's not arbitrary. My statement that there has to be a default in "one direction or the other" is clearly wrong, as you've indicated. I would still argue that a null value is arbitrary and does not map to the user's wishes. My opinion is that having it 'on' is no more or less arbitrary than having no wishes expressed.
    - ktsmith 14y ago
      > I would still argue that a null value is arbitrary and does not map to the user's wishes. It's not arbitrary though, it clearly spells out that the browser vendor doesn't know what the users intent it.
      - tvladeck 14y ago
        Again, fair point - but then by definition the second clause of my statement is correct - the user's wishes are unknown, so any direction taken is then... arbitrary? :) At any rate, you seem well-versed in this area, so let me ask you a question: what is the difference the website's behavior between a "null" and a "track me, please" value in the header?
- pbreit 14y ago
  Nope. For the past 10-20 years, browsing has worked as if there were not a DNT signal. So clearly "default off" is not "just as arbitrary". Yahoo is right.
  - tvladeck 14y ago
    My opinion is that _any_ setting that has not been chosen by the user is arbitrary. I understand your opinion, however.
- smilliken 14y ago
  Another way to look at it: this is the current status quo, and Yahoo is not going to make a radical change to its business because Microsoft changed a default setting in its web browser. I had no reasonable expectation that Yahoo would handle this differently.
jtchang 14y ago
Took me a second to figure out this whole DNT business. So basically it is just an HTTP header your browser sends to the server that tells it not to track. Seems kind of like the wrong way to do it. If I was some nefarious website wouldn't I have straight up ignore it? There isn't any incentive for me to not track a user. In fact aren't a lot of companies around advertising based on the fact that you CAN track users? More info here: http://donottrack.us/ http://donottrack.us/
- ktsmith 14y ago
  The thing about DNT is that the advertising industry (not malicious/shady websites) are supportive of it as a voluntary standard that they will comply with it. All the major players are saying they won't play nicely with IE10 due to the default on flag instead of a default null (no intent expressed) flag.
  - jlarocco 14y ago
    In other words meaning they're not going to support it... "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" is not really supporting DNT. It really shows they're business model depends on people being computer illiterate. And now that DNT is on by default they're revolting because they know few people will ever go out of their way to opt-in and get tracked.
    - ktsmith 14y ago
      > "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" No, they are only going to support it if it is _actually_ the users intent, not a vendors intent. This is completely reasonable and the actions of MS are undermining the efforts to get this voluntary standard going. Keep in mind, DNT is completely voluntary.
      - jlarocco 14y ago
        One could just as easily argue that a user should only be tracked if it's their explicit intent to be tracked, in which case DNT should be on unless the user turns it off. That makes more sense to me, and I think a lot of people would agree. Obviously, Microsoft thinks that should be the case.
leeoniya 14y ago
To be honest, i actually don't care if yahoo tracks me on yahoo properties - in fact, i expect them to. What i DO NOT want is for them to track me across the entire internet through injected javascript, iframes and dedicated tracking domains that serve same-origin analytic scripts from hundreds of sites - that is unethical. Currently using adblock plus, noscript and ghostery on my FF setup with specific additional controls in ABE for Twitter and FB domains.
- taf2 14y ago
  it's also a very useful feature of the internet, that browser's like safari 6 have broken. there are other uses to third party cookies besides tracking - a/b testing. many web properties are shared between multiple top level domains. ecommerce sites will do this for example to sell different product lines, but they might want to have similar user preferences shared between the top level domains... you can't do that if you kill third party cookies... or block the same features that we'd use in ad networks to track you... IE10 isn't so bad it's just saying don't do this... so - we'll happily ignore it. safari 6 is the real story that hasn't gotten enough attention in comparison... thankful it's not as widely used or is it... iphone,ipad...
- kevinpet 14y ago
  This comment is pretty irrelevant to the question of DNT defaults.
teuobk 14y ago
This is surprising, given that Microsoft is the provider of ads on Yahoo Search (and perhaps other properties).
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
theevocater 14y ago
I know people celebrated Microsoft's decision to do this in IE10, but this is what many of us were saying would happen. The relationship with the Do Not Track flag was always tenuous so flagrantly ignoring the spec (which indicates that default on is wrong) was simply going to cause companies to ignore the flag completely. Regardless, this whole thing is silliness in the extreme. I wonder if this means yahoo is going to start allowing requests with the evil bit set as well :). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit) EDIT: also, didn't IE revert this change? http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/08/07/do-not-track-in-the-windows-8-set-up-experience.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2... Well ... Sort of > DNT fits naturally into this process. Customers will receive prominent notice that their selection of Express Settings turns DNT “on.” In addition, by using the Customize approach, users will be able to independently turn “on” and “off” a number of settings, including the setting for the DNT signal.
- Dylan16807 14y ago
  >people celebrated Microsoft's decision They did? I didn't see any do that.
  - theevocater 14y ago
    strange. maybe i read too much reddit :(
    - salmanapk 14y ago
      MS clearly tried to kill(intentionally or stupidly, idk) the whole DNT thing and those fools were celebrating it.
- technoslut 14y ago
  Advertising companies can be shameless. What makes you think they ever would have respected DNT even if was opt-out?
  - 14y ago
powertower 14y ago
> Recently, Microsoft unilaterally decided to turn on DNT in Internet Explorer 10 by default, rather than at users’ direction. > It basically means that the DNT signal from IE10 doesn’t express user intent. Blatantly false. Not only are you presented with the option to turn off DNT on first use (that takes up the entire screen), but I'd imagine users would choose to have advertisers track them about 1-10% of the time if made to choose. So a default On setting does represent the consumer to a degree that you can't ignore.
- jrajav 14y ago
  I also did a double-take on that first sentence you quoted. I'm pretty sure I read earlier that they will be prompting first-time users on what their preference will be, and that the "default" basically just means which position that switch will be in when the choice is presented. However, I did some quick fact-checking and I couldn't find anything to back that up; if you don't mind, where did you find that IE10 presents that option?
  - ben0x539 14y ago
    I had the same reaction. I found [1], which seems consistent with what I remembered. [1]: http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/08/07/do-not-track-in-the-windows-8-set-up-experience.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...
- wpietri 14y ago
  The hilarious part is that they believe no DNT signal does express an intent to be tracked. Heads, they win. Tails, you lose.
  - callahad 14y ago
    That's incorrect. DNT has three states: True, False, and null (omitted). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_not_track_header https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_not_track_header
ben0x539 14y ago
I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that users intend to not be tracked by the very large number of third parties they are involuntarily exposed to on the web. Yahoo are resorting to this whole buzzword-laden meaningless rhetoric around ~user experience~ and ~value proposition~. That just reinforces the impression that the only reason anyone was prepared to go along with DNT was that they assumed that 99% of users weren't going to be in a position to express their ~user intent~ to not be tracked. Since, you know, most people have better things to do than to learn how to teach their computer about obvious preferences like "please don't spy on me". Microsoft is simply making the benefits of the DNT scheme more accessible to its users. It's pretty telling that Yahoo is already backpedaling from respecting the users' intent, faced with the possibility that more than an insignificant fraction of users might actually be enabled to benefit from DNT by this decision. (Edit: Personally I think rather than squabbling about DNT, browser vendors should be taking much more aggressive, technical steps to make tracking users harder, instead of having a default configuration that stops just short of transmitting the user's SSN via request header. Disabling features like user agent and referer headers for and quickly discarding cookies from untrusted (by individual user "intent", not based on SSL certs or anything) hosts would be a start.)
- patrickmay 14y ago
  > I think rather than squabbling about DNT, browser vendors should be taking much more aggressive, technical steps to make tracking users harder Exactly. Do Not Track is unenforceable. We need Cannot Track.
  - thematt 14y ago
    You already have it. Use the following Chrome extensions: NoScript, AdBlock, Ghostery and Do Not Track Plus. There's no sense in relying in any of the large companies to voluntarily give up ad revenue, you need to take matters in to your own hands.
    - spindritf 14y ago
      AdBlock and Ghostery are great and fairly noninvasive. You can also add BetterPrivacy or RefControl, though that last one can cause some breakage. NoScript however makes the web completely unusable for large majority of regular people and frustrating for almost everyone else.
donohoe 14y ago
I left this as a comment on their blog which I assume will never be approved: "We fundamentally believe that the online experience is better when it is personalized" Um, doing so is not impeded by DNT as that does not relate to ads. That a bit of a white-lie to imply that it is they way you've worded that first paragraph. "It basically means that the DNT signal from IE10 doesn’t express user intent." Actually I think it does - you think your average person on the street wants targeted ads? Seriously - who is writing this. "In principle, we support “Do Not Track” (DNT)" In principle China, Syria, Iran etc support Human Rights... "Ultimately, we believe that DNT must map to user intent — not to the intent of one browser creator, plug-in writer, or third- party software service." Again - seriously - what reality are you apart of? I had hoped for a Yahoo turn-around of sorts, I really did. You've lost me.
- netcan 14y ago
  Both side are playing an Orwellian game, pretending they are concerned with users intentions & desires when in reality both are assuming that users have no intents and desires coherent enough to act on. They are fighting over the default because they know that in 95% of cases, the default is all that matters.
- icebraining 14y ago
  How are ads not part of the online experience? (At least for everyone not using Adblock). Of course they are. Hell, many click on them! Actually I think it does - you think your average person on the street wants targeted ads? It depends. If the alternative is paying or not having the content, absolutely. In my limited experience, people don't really care or mind being tracked unless they can see the drawbacks in their face.
fitztrev 14y ago
Issue aside, I'm curious about this site itself. The first thing I noticed is that they're running a pretty old version of WordPress. They're on 3.0.3 (December 2010) when the latest version is 3.4.2. For security purposes, I'm surprised they don't stay on top of that. Also I was really confused if this was an official Yahoo site. No real mention anywhere on it. After some quick digging, it appears to be. But I'm surprised it's not hosted under the Yahoo.com domain somewhere.
nanoanderson 14y ago
Maybe Yahoo should respect IE10's DNT defaults, but display huge modal screens that tell the user "Your browser vendor is inhibiting our value proposition. Please allow us to track your behavior for maximum value extraction."
- wonderyak 14y ago
  They should give you a medal. That's how you create upward revenue stream dynamics!
wonderyak 14y ago
> In our view, this degrades the experience for the majority of users and makes it hard to deliver on our value proposition to them. I know Yahoo! has to maintain their business which depends on things like ads and content delivery; but to say it with such sterile marketing jargon just makes me nauseous. How about you guys do what everyone else has had to do since the beginning; create something awesome and let people use it with a minimal barrier to entry. Right now, Yahoo! is like a giant skyscraper tenented only by iPhone case kiosks.
- wpietri 14y ago
  The problem is that Yahoo's customers aren't their users. Yahoo's users are the veal calves. They don't seem to understand what to do with businesses where the customers are the users. Flickr, for example.
Steko 14y ago
Am I mistaken or did the FTC not just fine Google $22.5 million over the exact same behavior for a considerably smaller share of web users. If I'm Microsoft I am making a very public appeal to the FTC over this Monday morning. $22.5 million is a lot more money to Y! than Google. And as wary as consumers are of Microsoft long term they've got to degrade the Google/Firefox brand to start gaining any traction. Why not go full bore on tracking/creepiness?
- csoghoian 14y ago
  The FTC reached a settlement with Google this year for a $22 mil fine because Google violated a previous consent order over Buzz. Yahoo is not under an existing consent order with the FTC. For the most part, the FTC does not get fines unless a company violates an existing consent order. Furthermore, Google didn't get fined because it circumvented Safari's privacy settings, but rather, because it lied about the extent to which users could opt out of tracking. I've not seen anything that suggests that Yahoo is lying about the extent to which they will respect or ignore the DNT header. The FTC's deception powers aren't going to be of much use against Yahoo here. (Disclosure: I worked at the FTC between 2009-2010, and worked on the investigations of Facebook, MySpace and Twitter).
mikegirouard 14y ago
No comments on the post? Hmm... I'm curious what they are getting but haven't approved.
pbiggar 14y ago
In all the comments here, I can't find anybody who thinks that Yahoo is doing the right thing here. Well, I do. I think what Yahoo is doing is the right thing for them, for their users, and for the web. If the web is going to be ad supported, then its going to have to be targeted advertising or its going to be both shit and annoying. Remember "punch the monkey", or ads that took over the entire screen? Now, through tracking, we are able to get really really good ads - things you might even be interested to see and buy. If DNT was supported by everybody and on by default, that's the end of online advertising in its current form. So we can choose from the following options: ignore DNT, ignore DNT for IE10, or go back to non-targeted advertising. Let's assume the last of those, which leads us to the following options: revert to shit ads, make users pay for content directly, or pack up your content-producing company and go home. None of these are best for the users or the web. The DNT founders know this - that's why it was default null in the spec and in Firefox. IE10 is doing this deliberately even though they know it can't work, and there are choices here: they are trying to improve the world but are incredibly wonderfully naive, they want to undermine Google, or they want to undermine DNT. I'd love to believe its the first, but no-one has ever claimed that about MS.
- wpietri 14y ago
  That ignores that user tracking wasn't possible for the first 150 years of ad-supported publishing. I also think your slippery-slope argument is excess drama. The notion that untracked users force us to a world of shitty ads is implausible to me. When I saw punch-the-monkey ads disappear, it was because publishers realized that terrible ads destroyed the value of their brand. I agree that money has shifted toward more tightly tracked ads. But if large portions of the readership are untracked, there's no reason to think that the money won't shift back. Vendors won't stop advertising, and they won't go back to print. And really, it's not clear that the current model is sustainable anyhow. CPMs have been falling for years. I was just talking with a founder of a (now-sold) ad-supported content company. He said that there's no way he'd do that again; rates are low and are headed lower. And there's much more competition for eyeballs from SEO-optimized, attention-getting bullshit.
- ihsw 14y ago
  Or we could have non-intrusive ads and non-targeted ads, there's nothing wrong with that.
calbear81 14y ago
It's obvious that Microsoft doesn't have as much to lose with a DNT default setting in IE10 when their profit center is tied to Windows and business software. They have MSN.com and Bing but both are money losers and at this point, hurting Google and Yahoo might be a better strategy even if it means "cutting off your nose to smite your face". They also hope that this will stem the defects from IE and help sell more Windows 8 upgrades and Surface tablets in general. In regards to how people feel about tracking, people are always asked in isolation about tracking and of course everyone say's they hate it and they don't want to be tracked. The better question is asking them if they will accept the alternative. Scared of Facebook? Put a $5 fee per month to replace lost ad revenues and users will depart en masse. The reality is a big chunk of the internet and the services people rely on, love, and use daily are ad supported and if given the alternative of a free ad supported model vs. a paid model, they would choose ad supported.

80 points by jakeludington 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ajays 14y ago

The only reason Microsoft is making DNT the default is because it will directly impact Google's bottom line (and Microsoft loses money in its online division, so they won't hurt as much). Since when did Microsoft really start caring about the users?

tvladeck 14y ago

They key thing to understand is that if IE10 did not have DNT enabled, that the default setting would be _just as arbitrary_ and would still therefore not "map to user intent" in their words. There has to be a default in one direction or the other. That, and many users will use IE10 knowing that it ships with DNT pre-enabled. To ignore this is totally immoral and unethical. This is totally shameful.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
Yeah. Anyone who reads the default settings summary in the OOBE (out-of-box experience) in Windows 8 will be aware it's enabled.
- ktsmith 14y ago
  In other words, almost no one will know. The thing is most people don't take the time to read those things they just click through blindly.
  - gergles 14y ago
    Yet somehow software developers are quick to screech that users agreed to 'license agreements' that have the same weight, right? (Words on a screen that everyone just 'clicks through blindly'.) You can't have it both ways. Either having something show up and clicking next manifests consent or it doesn't. IE is extremely clear that DNT will be turned on and lets you opt out of doing so. Users are expressing intent by using the default settings; it isn't like it's a hidden default that they don't tell anyone about.
    - thezilch 14y ago
      Somehow you replaced "lawyers" with "software developers," right?
    - ktsmith 14y ago
      I don't know any developers that believe that however I've met many managers and attorneys that believe it. Common industry practices should be laid at the feet of those responsible. Beyond licensing agreements though, people won't read instructions, disclaimers, warnings, etc. It's not just one thing, and when designing things at work one of our common points to try and make things more clear includes "people don't read" so how can we improve this.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    Almost no one? It's a short summary and I expect, since people have to choose between defaults and custom setup, people will read it.
ktsmith 14y ago
>They key thing to understand is that if IE10 did not have DNT enabled, that the default setting would be _just as arbitrary_ and would still therefore not "map to user intent" in their words. There has to be a default in one direction or the other. The default is to send a null value in the header meaning that no intent has been expressed, that's not arbitrary. > That, and many users will use IE10 knowing that it ships with DNT pre-enabled. To ignore this is totally immoral and unethical. This is totally shameful. Most users will have no idea what DNT is, nor will they bother to switch the flag. MS setting it to do not track by default undermines the effort being put into the standard. No one is going to comply with a voluntary standard if one of the largest browser vendors turns it on by default.
- tvladeck 14y ago
  > The default is to send a null value in the header meaning that no intent has been expressed, that's not arbitrary. My statement that there has to be a default in "one direction or the other" is clearly wrong, as you've indicated. I would still argue that a null value is arbitrary and does not map to the user's wishes. My opinion is that having it 'on' is no more or less arbitrary than having no wishes expressed.
  - ktsmith 14y ago
    > I would still argue that a null value is arbitrary and does not map to the user's wishes. It's not arbitrary though, it clearly spells out that the browser vendor doesn't know what the users intent it.
    - tvladeck 14y ago
      Again, fair point - but then by definition the second clause of my statement is correct - the user's wishes are unknown, so any direction taken is then... arbitrary? :) At any rate, you seem well-versed in this area, so let me ask you a question: what is the difference the website's behavior between a "null" and a "track me, please" value in the header?
pbreit 14y ago
Nope. For the past 10-20 years, browsing has worked as if there were not a DNT signal. So clearly "default off" is not "just as arbitrary". Yahoo is right.
- tvladeck 14y ago
  My opinion is that _any_ setting that has not been chosen by the user is arbitrary. I understand your opinion, however.
smilliken 14y ago
Another way to look at it: this is the current status quo, and Yahoo is not going to make a radical change to its business because Microsoft changed a default setting in its web browser. I had no reasonable expectation that Yahoo would handle this differently.

jtchang 14y ago

Took me a second to figure out this whole DNT business. So basically it is just an HTTP header your browser sends to the server that tells it not to track. Seems kind of like the wrong way to do it. If I was some nefarious website wouldn't I have straight up ignore it? There isn't any incentive for me to not track a user. In fact aren't a lot of companies around advertising based on the fact that you CAN track users? More info here: http://donottrack.us/ http://donottrack.us/

ktsmith 14y ago
The thing about DNT is that the advertising industry (not malicious/shady websites) are supportive of it as a voluntary standard that they will comply with it. All the major players are saying they won't play nicely with IE10 due to the default on flag instead of a default null (no intent expressed) flag.
- jlarocco 14y ago
  In other words meaning they're not going to support it... "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" is not really supporting DNT. It really shows they're business model depends on people being computer illiterate. And now that DNT is on by default they're revolting because they know few people will ever go out of their way to opt-in and get tracked.
  - ktsmith 14y ago
    > "We're only going to support it if it's not turned on by default" No, they are only going to support it if it is _actually_ the users intent, not a vendors intent. This is completely reasonable and the actions of MS are undermining the efforts to get this voluntary standard going. Keep in mind, DNT is completely voluntary.
    - jlarocco 14y ago
      One could just as easily argue that a user should only be tracked if it's their explicit intent to be tracked, in which case DNT should be on unless the user turns it off. That makes more sense to me, and I think a lot of people would agree. Obviously, Microsoft thinks that should be the case.

leeoniya 14y ago

To be honest, i actually don't care if yahoo tracks me on yahoo properties - in fact, i expect them to. What i DO NOT want is for them to track me across the entire internet through injected javascript, iframes and dedicated tracking domains that serve same-origin analytic scripts from hundreds of sites - that is unethical. Currently using adblock plus, noscript and ghostery on my FF setup with specific additional controls in ABE for Twitter and FB domains.

taf2 14y ago
it's also a very useful feature of the internet, that browser's like safari 6 have broken. there are other uses to third party cookies besides tracking - a/b testing. many web properties are shared between multiple top level domains. ecommerce sites will do this for example to sell different product lines, but they might want to have similar user preferences shared between the top level domains... you can't do that if you kill third party cookies... or block the same features that we'd use in ad networks to track you... IE10 isn't so bad it's just saying don't do this... so - we'll happily ignore it. safari 6 is the real story that hasn't gotten enough attention in comparison... thankful it's not as widely used or is it... iphone,ipad...
kevinpet 14y ago
This comment is pretty irrelevant to the question of DNT defaults.

teuobk 14y ago

This is surprising, given that Microsoft is the provider of ads on Yahoo Search (and perhaps other properties).

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

theevocater 14y ago

I know people celebrated Microsoft's decision to do this in IE10, but this is what many of us were saying would happen. The relationship with the Do Not Track flag was always tenuous so flagrantly ignoring the spec (which indicates that default on is wrong) was simply going to cause companies to ignore the flag completely. Regardless, this whole thing is silliness in the extreme. I wonder if this means yahoo is going to start allowing requests with the evil bit set as well :). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit) EDIT: also, didn't IE revert this change? http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/08/07/do-not-track-in-the-windows-8-set-up-experience.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2... Well ... Sort of > DNT fits naturally into this process. Customers will receive prominent notice that their selection of Express Settings turns DNT “on.” In addition, by using the Customize approach, users will be able to independently turn “on” and “off” a number of settings, including the setting for the DNT signal.

Dylan16807 14y ago
>people celebrated Microsoft's decision They did? I didn't see any do that.
- theevocater 14y ago
  strange. maybe i read too much reddit :(
  - salmanapk 14y ago
    MS clearly tried to kill(intentionally or stupidly, idk) the whole DNT thing and those fools were celebrating it.
technoslut 14y ago
Advertising companies can be shameless. What makes you think they ever would have respected DNT even if was opt-out?
- 14y ago

powertower 14y ago

> Recently, Microsoft unilaterally decided to turn on DNT in Internet Explorer 10 by default, rather than at users’ direction. > It basically means that the DNT signal from IE10 doesn’t express user intent. Blatantly false. Not only are you presented with the option to turn off DNT on first use (that takes up the entire screen), but I'd imagine users would choose to have advertisers track them about 1-10% of the time if made to choose. So a default On setting does represent the consumer to a degree that you can't ignore.

jrajav 14y ago
I also did a double-take on that first sentence you quoted. I'm pretty sure I read earlier that they will be prompting first-time users on what their preference will be, and that the "default" basically just means which position that switch will be in when the choice is presented. However, I did some quick fact-checking and I couldn't find anything to back that up; if you don't mind, where did you find that IE10 presents that option?
- ben0x539 14y ago
  I had the same reaction. I found [1], which seems consistent with what I remembered. [1]: http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/08/07/do-not-track-in-the-windows-8-set-up-experience.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...
wpietri 14y ago
The hilarious part is that they believe no DNT signal does express an intent to be tracked. Heads, they win. Tails, you lose.
- callahad 14y ago
  That's incorrect. DNT has three states: True, False, and null (omitted). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_not_track_header https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_not_track_header

ben0x539 14y ago

I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that users intend to not be tracked by the very large number of third parties they are involuntarily exposed to on the web. Yahoo are resorting to this whole buzzword-laden meaningless rhetoric around ~user experience~ and ~value proposition~. That just reinforces the impression that the only reason anyone was prepared to go along with DNT was that they assumed that 99% of users weren't going to be in a position to express their ~user intent~ to not be tracked. Since, you know, most people have better things to do than to learn how to teach their computer about obvious preferences like "please don't spy on me". Microsoft is simply making the benefits of the DNT scheme more accessible to its users. It's pretty telling that Yahoo is already backpedaling from respecting the users' intent, faced with the possibility that more than an insignificant fraction of users might actually be enabled to benefit from DNT by this decision. (Edit: Personally I think rather than squabbling about DNT, browser vendors should be taking much more aggressive, technical steps to make tracking users harder, instead of having a default configuration that stops just short of transmitting the user's SSN via request header. Disabling features like user agent and referer headers for and quickly discarding cookies from untrusted (by individual user "intent", not based on SSL certs or anything) hosts would be a start.)

patrickmay 14y ago
> I think rather than squabbling about DNT, browser vendors should be taking much more aggressive, technical steps to make tracking users harder Exactly. Do Not Track is unenforceable. We need Cannot Track.
- thematt 14y ago
  You already have it. Use the following Chrome extensions: NoScript, AdBlock, Ghostery and Do Not Track Plus. There's no sense in relying in any of the large companies to voluntarily give up ad revenue, you need to take matters in to your own hands.
  - spindritf 14y ago
    AdBlock and Ghostery are great and fairly noninvasive. You can also add BetterPrivacy or RefControl, though that last one can cause some breakage. NoScript however makes the web completely unusable for large majority of regular people and frustrating for almost everyone else.

donohoe 14y ago

I left this as a comment on their blog which I assume will never be approved: "We fundamentally believe that the online experience is better when it is personalized" Um, doing so is not impeded by DNT as that does not relate to ads. That a bit of a white-lie to imply that it is they way you've worded that first paragraph. "It basically means that the DNT signal from IE10 doesn’t express user intent." Actually I think it does - you think your average person on the street wants targeted ads? Seriously - who is writing this. "In principle, we support “Do Not Track” (DNT)" In principle China, Syria, Iran etc support Human Rights... "Ultimately, we believe that DNT must map to user intent — not to the intent of one browser creator, plug-in writer, or third- party software service." Again - seriously - what reality are you apart of? I had hoped for a Yahoo turn-around of sorts, I really did. You've lost me.

netcan 14y ago
Both side are playing an Orwellian game, pretending they are concerned with users intentions & desires when in reality both are assuming that users have no intents and desires coherent enough to act on. They are fighting over the default because they know that in 95% of cases, the default is all that matters.
icebraining 14y ago
How are ads not part of the online experience? (At least for everyone not using Adblock). Of course they are. Hell, many click on them! Actually I think it does - you think your average person on the street wants targeted ads? It depends. If the alternative is paying or not having the content, absolutely. In my limited experience, people don't really care or mind being tracked unless they can see the drawbacks in their face.

fitztrev 14y ago

Issue aside, I'm curious about this site itself. The first thing I noticed is that they're running a pretty old version of WordPress. They're on 3.0.3 (December 2010) when the latest version is 3.4.2. For security purposes, I'm surprised they don't stay on top of that. Also I was really confused if this was an official Yahoo site. No real mention anywhere on it. After some quick digging, it appears to be. But I'm surprised it's not hosted under the Yahoo.com domain somewhere.

nanoanderson 14y ago

Maybe Yahoo should respect IE10's DNT defaults, but display huge modal screens that tell the user "Your browser vendor is inhibiting our value proposition. Please allow us to track your behavior for maximum value extraction."

wonderyak 14y ago
They should give you a medal. That's how you create upward revenue stream dynamics!

wonderyak 14y ago

> In our view, this degrades the experience for the majority of users and makes it hard to deliver on our value proposition to them. I know Yahoo! has to maintain their business which depends on things like ads and content delivery; but to say it with such sterile marketing jargon just makes me nauseous. How about you guys do what everyone else has had to do since the beginning; create something awesome and let people use it with a minimal barrier to entry. Right now, Yahoo! is like a giant skyscraper tenented only by iPhone case kiosks.

wpietri 14y ago
The problem is that Yahoo's customers aren't their users. Yahoo's users are the veal calves. They don't seem to understand what to do with businesses where the customers are the users. Flickr, for example.

Steko 14y ago

Am I mistaken or did the FTC not just fine Google $22.5 million over the exact same behavior for a considerably smaller share of web users. If I'm Microsoft I am making a very public appeal to the FTC over this Monday morning. $22.5 million is a lot more money to Y! than Google. And as wary as consumers are of Microsoft long term they've got to degrade the Google/Firefox brand to start gaining any traction. Why not go full bore on tracking/creepiness?

csoghoian 14y ago
The FTC reached a settlement with Google this year for a $22 mil fine because Google violated a previous consent order over Buzz. Yahoo is not under an existing consent order with the FTC. For the most part, the FTC does not get fines unless a company violates an existing consent order. Furthermore, Google didn't get fined because it circumvented Safari's privacy settings, but rather, because it lied about the extent to which users could opt out of tracking. I've not seen anything that suggests that Yahoo is lying about the extent to which they will respect or ignore the DNT header. The FTC's deception powers aren't going to be of much use against Yahoo here. (Disclosure: I worked at the FTC between 2009-2010, and worked on the investigations of Facebook, MySpace and Twitter).

mikegirouard 14y ago

No comments on the post? Hmm... I'm curious what they are getting but haven't approved.

pbiggar 14y ago

In all the comments here, I can't find anybody who thinks that Yahoo is doing the right thing here. Well, I do. I think what Yahoo is doing is the right thing for them, for their users, and for the web. If the web is going to be ad supported, then its going to have to be targeted advertising or its going to be both shit and annoying. Remember "punch the monkey", or ads that took over the entire screen? Now, through tracking, we are able to get really really good ads - things you might even be interested to see and buy. If DNT was supported by everybody and on by default, that's the end of online advertising in its current form. So we can choose from the following options: ignore DNT, ignore DNT for IE10, or go back to non-targeted advertising. Let's assume the last of those, which leads us to the following options: revert to shit ads, make users pay for content directly, or pack up your content-producing company and go home. None of these are best for the users or the web. The DNT founders know this - that's why it was default null in the spec and in Firefox. IE10 is doing this deliberately even though they know it can't work, and there are choices here: they are trying to improve the world but are incredibly wonderfully naive, they want to undermine Google, or they want to undermine DNT. I'd love to believe its the first, but no-one has ever claimed that about MS.

wpietri 14y ago
That ignores that user tracking wasn't possible for the first 150 years of ad-supported publishing. I also think your slippery-slope argument is excess drama. The notion that untracked users force us to a world of shitty ads is implausible to me. When I saw punch-the-monkey ads disappear, it was because publishers realized that terrible ads destroyed the value of their brand. I agree that money has shifted toward more tightly tracked ads. But if large portions of the readership are untracked, there's no reason to think that the money won't shift back. Vendors won't stop advertising, and they won't go back to print. And really, it's not clear that the current model is sustainable anyhow. CPMs have been falling for years. I was just talking with a founder of a (now-sold) ad-supported content company. He said that there's no way he'd do that again; rates are low and are headed lower. And there's much more competition for eyeballs from SEO-optimized, attention-getting bullshit.
ihsw 14y ago
Or we could have non-intrusive ads and non-targeted ads, there's nothing wrong with that.

calbear81 14y ago

It's obvious that Microsoft doesn't have as much to lose with a DNT default setting in IE10 when their profit center is tied to Windows and business software. They have MSN.com and Bing but both are money losers and at this point, hurting Google and Yahoo might be a better strategy even if it means "cutting off your nose to smite your face". They also hope that this will stem the defects from IE and help sell more Windows 8 upgrades and Surface tablets in general. In regards to how people feel about tracking, people are always asked in isolation about tracking and of course everyone say's they hate it and they don't want to be tracked. The better question is asking them if they will accept the alternative. Scared of Facebook? Put a $5 fee per month to replace lost ad revenues and users will depart en masse. The reality is a big chunk of the internet and the services people rely on, love, and use daily are ad supported and if given the alternative of a free ad supported model vs. a paid model, they would choose ad supported.