3 ms·
> Is making DNT opt-out bad? The common argument is that it is: 1) Advertisers won't give up tracking across the board. It's too lucrative for them. 2) Most
by B-Con 14y ago
> Is making DNT opt-out bad?
The common argument is that it is:
1) Advertisers won't give up tracking across the board. It's too lucrative for them.
2) Most users don't care about the setting that much.
3) Enabling it for default for the majority of users will cause present advertisers with a majority of users who they cannot track.
4) Per (1), the advertisers will then elect to ignore DNT.
5) DNT becomes a useless ignored flag and a waste of time.
Instead, if it's opt-in:
1) Most people don't bother turning it on.
2) The advertisers face pressure to comply with the ones who do.
3) People who do turn it on then enjoy the benefits.
Also, the DNT specification explicitly says that DNT should not be turned on by default, for these very reasons.
- neumann_alfred 14y agoHow is that not blackmail? You might as well say if everybody started reading the list of ingredients of food they buy and take them seriously, corporations would just start to lie and put whatever they want in there. Sure, maybe some would, but that's what jail is for.
- Dylan16807 14y agoPeople intentionally and knowingly reading the ingredients / turning on DNT is the correct method. I'm struggling to find a valid food-ingredient-analogy but it would be very different from your scenario. It would have to involve Microsoft auto-scanning the ingredients without the user ever turning this feature on. Then Microsoft would have to do something with the results that hurts/disparages certain food producers. And then the food producers would stop listing ingredients in a form that Microsoft can OCR, not lie about them.
- ladzoppelin 14y agoThe spec does not say DNT should be turned on by default. The spec says it has to give the users full knowledge of what turning on DNT means which IE 10 does on first run.