3 ms·

> The worst part about the DNT header was the requirement for the tracking companies to regulate themselves. Initially, the header was opt-in, but with the intr

> The worst part about the DNT header was the requirement for the tracking companies to regulate themselves. Initially, the header was opt-in, but with the introduction of IE10, Microsoft decided that the option was going to be opt-out. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but being a former CTO of an adserving company, I feel qualified to at least voice my opinion: this was a brilliant move by Microsoft. The DNT header as it were, was a perfect middle-ground for advertising companies: people that cared enough were able to opt-out, and people that did not care would still be able to be tracked. Google had the most to lose. I feel Microsoft made this decision in order to (accelerate the) kill of the DNT header, and thus hoping on more severe legislation.

eli 12y ago
I think you give them too much credit. I think Microsoft, having little to lose in the way of targeted advertising, simply wanted more people to use DNT to hurt or even just embarrass its competitors. I don't think they intended to torpedo the whole spec on purpose. (And, indeed, I don't see any severe legislation on the horizon)
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Microsoft has torpedoes many specs in the past, intentionally. They are certainly in that business. There is no reason to doubt that an appearance of torpedoing a spec wasn't exactly that - its the simplest explanation.
  - grimman 12y ago
    There's definitely precedent for that behavior from Microsoft's side, obvious or not (a certain anti-trust case springs to mind). They have nothing to gain by being obvious about it, and everything to gain by being a whole lot more sneaky about it. I'm not saying it's necessarily what happened with the DNT header, but they'd do well to avoid drawing too much attention to themselves in certain cases.
  - eli 12y ago
    Well, no, because they actually want something like Do Not Track to succeed. The theory that they made it fail on purpose so that an even stronger version of the same idea will come about is definitely not the simplest explanation.

eli 12y ago

I think you give them too much credit. I think Microsoft, having little to lose in the way of targeted advertising, simply wanted more people to use DNT to hurt or even just embarrass its competitors. I don't think they intended to torpedo the whole spec on purpose. (And, indeed, I don't see any severe legislation on the horizon)

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Microsoft has torpedoes many specs in the past, intentionally. They are certainly in that business. There is no reason to doubt that an appearance of torpedoing a spec wasn't exactly that - its the simplest explanation.
- grimman 12y ago
  There's definitely precedent for that behavior from Microsoft's side, obvious or not (a certain anti-trust case springs to mind). They have nothing to gain by being obvious about it, and everything to gain by being a whole lot more sneaky about it. I'm not saying it's necessarily what happened with the DNT header, but they'd do well to avoid drawing too much attention to themselves in certain cases.
- eli 12y ago
  Well, no, because they actually want something like Do Not Track to succeed. The theory that they made it fail on purpose so that an even stronger version of the same idea will come about is definitely not the simplest explanation.