3 ms·
Or, by turning it on by default, advertisers will completely ignore the setting, exactly as they are with Internet Explorer.
by JohnTHaller 14y ago
Or, by turning it on by default, advertisers will completely ignore the setting, exactly as they are with Internet Explorer.
- wereHamster 14y agoWhy should they be honoring the header now? For them, implementing support for that standard are only expenses. There are no incentives to do so, and no punishment or repercussions if they don't.
- boq 14y ago> Why should they be honoring the header now? The idea was that, given a significant enough amount of people turning it on, advertisers would take notice of it and react accordingly. If it's on by default it is meaningless. It's a tool that enable users to send a message to advertisers that they are not okay with their practices. It was designed this way. It says you are okay with ads but not with the tracking. > There are no incentives to do so, and no punishment or repercussions if they don't. Except for adblock. If the only option to avoid tracking is to block ads, then that is what will be used.
- chii 14y ago> Except for adblock. If the only option to avoid tracking is to block ads, then that is what will be used. Therefore, browsers should come, by default, with an adblock feature (or simply, just bundle the adblock plugin). This DNT business is purely just lip service.
- Bockit 14y agoI think this could potentially be a worthwhile outcome. Advertisers ignore it, eventually someone manages to explain successfully to enough people with clout that this is a bad thing, and hopefully something is done to require advertisers to respect the setting.