[WorldMaker]

My entire point is that if it was a "fragile agreement" it wasn't in good faith and it was lying and waiting for any excuse to break it, by definition. It doesn't matter what excuse broke it. It was always a bad faith attempt to score some regulatory points and it was never about actually doing good for users. They never should have offered a "standard" for such a "fragile agreement" they didn't really believe in, and everything they said about it was hypocrisy.

[Dylan16807]

I meant a fragile good faith agreement.

I haven't seen any particularly compelling evidence it wasn't in good faith.

It was an "attempt to score some regulatory points and it was never about actually doing good for users". But that was always obvious because it was companies doing it.

It still would have done good if it was implemented.

[WorldMaker]

Again, it was implemented and it didn't do any good, on purpose as soon as users tried to actually use it.

It's not a good faith agreement if "we agree to do this only so long as the setting to enable it is in the sub-sub-basement of the browser locked in a closet marked 'Beware of Leopard'". If it wasn't "oh no a browser enabled it by default" it would have been "oh no a tutorial went viral on social media telling people how there isn't really a leopard and that everyone should just open that closet and click the button", because again the excuse doesn't matter why they stopped supporting it they never planned to support it for more than the theory of it. There's always some other excuse. It was only ever a "heisenberg feature": it can either not be used or it could just not exist. I'm saying it's not possible at all to design a "heisenberg feature" like that in any possible definition of "good faith". If it wasn't designed to be used by even a paltry 5% of users at the time they balked and stopped supporting it, it wasn't designed in good faith. There's no way to look at that and think they meant anything about any of their promises when they said they'd support it.

[Dylan16807]

You can keep claiming bad faith and that they would have used any excuse all you want, but if you don't back that up with anything but gut feeling then I'm not going to be convinced.

Yes it would be bad faith if this thing you're claiming is true. It would help if you had some evidence.

"We agree to let users opt out." is a pretty simple proposition and the motives make sense. It helps those users and it significantly reduces the demand to regulate them, but doesn't cost much money. Removing the part where users do the opting is a very different situation. Balking at that does not require bad faith. It requires they not have the users' best interests at heart, but... yeah, we knew that. If they did then ads would be much rarer and much less invasive, if they existed at all.

[WorldMaker]

We probably have very different perspectives. I feel like I should warn you that you are very close to an ad hominem attack and I don't appreciate that.

My perspective from over a decade of software engineering is that you cannot ethically build a (privacy) feature that is "only ever to be opt in only" and not expect (privacy) experts to make a big deal about it ("hey everyone should opt in to this thing that makes your privacy better") and/or encourage other (browser) manufacturers to go ahead and make it default option ("this would make privacy better for non-expert users"). That's not an ethical feature, that's a bait-and-switch no matter what the timescale is between "this feature is opt-in only" and "oh no too many users opted in".

I am making a very opinionated judgement in leaping from it's not just a feature that was designed unethically, but that it was morally wrong for them to do so. It's fine if you don't agree that a bunch of people made a morally bad judgement call in building and marketing that feature. I believe that entire hype cycle of that feature did far more to setback privacy debates on the web for years than it did to help. I believe by making some of those morally wrong decisions years back Chrome established once (and maybe for all time) that their privacy teams cannot be trusted to build equitable/ethical/fair privacy systems. I worry that Mozilla is the last big opposition standing up to this behavior and I worry about what will happen if we lose Mozilla in this fight to keep an eye out for what other "privacy" ideas the Chrome team generates that should (rightfully) be deemed 'Harmful'.

I really don't expect you to agree with me at this point. The number of Firefox users left is abysmally tiny according to statistics. Chrome has won, despite whatever it is I (and I hope Mozilla continues to) think about their (lack of) professional ethics. At this point I'm only breaking it down for you as much as I can not to try to convince you, but to feel like I've done my part to say that I believe what Google did with DNT was very wrong, if not very evil, because there aren't a lot of people left to speak out against such wrongs. Because we as a profession don't have a proper ethics board to try these sorts of things in a court of our peers rather than let them fester and rot in the halls of companies that some people still believe the "Do No Evil" marketing despite actions they have taken.

[Dylan16807]

I'm not sure what you think is close to ad hominem, but I'm sorry.

> My perspective from over a decade of software engineering is that you cannot ethically build a (privacy) feature that is "only ever to be opt in only" and not expect (privacy) experts to make a big deal about it ("hey everyone should opt in to this thing that makes your privacy better") and/or encourage other (browser) manufacturers to go ahead and make it default option ("this would make privacy better for non-expert users"). That's not an ethical feature, that's a bait-and-switch no matter what the timescale is between "this feature is opt-in only" and "oh no too many users opted in".

Well I never said it was a particularly "ethical" feature. If they wanted to be ethical they would shut down 90+% of ads.

But you're making a big assumption here, that privacy experts bugging people about it and browsers making it the default would get the same response.

My bet is that privacy experts bugging people about it would have been tolerated just fine, and that most people still wouldn't flip the switch.

But browsers changing the default is qualitatively different from the user being able to set it.

I think your characterization of "too many users opted in" is flat-out wrong. The browser is opting, not the users. And it's not like people were choosing Edge because it would opt them out. That's a completely negligible percent of people.

Another way the two are different is very simple: If you had a big fraction of users manually flipping the switch, and the advertisers tried to cancel the feature because that was too many users, you could mobilize those tens of millions of people into a powerful political campaign to bake DNT into law.

> I believe that entire hype cycle of that feature did far more to setback privacy debates on the web for years than it did to help.

Maybe. But I'd still rather have privacy set back and have sites respecting my do not track header vs. privacy set back and it's completely useless...

As for the rest of your post, I'm confused about what you're accusing the Chrome devs in particular of doing? I agree that they're a big problem, see also flock, but with DNT they're not responsible for what the advertising group does. What could they have done better?

[WorldMaker]

> My bet is that privacy experts bugging people about it would have been tolerated just fine,

But they weren't tolerated. Comment sections of such articles were full of passive aggressive bullying about how "such a feature was only for nerds to care about and people shouldn't really do it". How much of that was ad industry paid, who knows. Rumors and reports abounded that articles were deranked in especially one well known search engine and how to videos were demonitized and hidden from recommendations in the current biggest video site. (And to not just point fingers at Google properties, there were similar rumors about algorithm shenanigans with posts on Twitter and Facebook, who both also have adtech firms deep into tracking.)

Obviously, privacy experts bugging people about it and browsers making it the default would get different responses: one is easier to deal with skullduggery and the other is "safe" enough to make passive-aggressive PR releases about as it gives you someone to point fingers at while you "take your ball and go home". I mentioned way above that it was a "good" excuse, and that's exactly how I think of it. They could pretend to be the victim and point the blame at a company with much less adtech as the real villain (for doing what users wanted and what was good for users); win/win.

Sure at this point we don't have clear evidence of skullduggery and it is mostly academic/hypothetical and a small assumption how the adtech firms would have reacted if something had slipped their nets and actually went viral. I don't think its a big assumption from there how they would have reacted nearly as quickly in "take their ball and go home" mode. The only difference there is whatever excuse they come up with to blame it on, and I can imagine all sorts of excuses they might have come up with. I'm "happy" for them they found such a "good" excuse.

> But browsers changing the default is qualitatively different from the user being able to set it.

I think we're never going to agree here. It's not qualitatively different. People had plenty of choice in browser at the time and the two browsers that did it had tiny minority user bases. It was quantitatively different. It was a lot of people opting in to more privacy at once with a browser upgrade. You can claim all you want that some number of those people were simply lazy and made "no choice", but the statistics don't actually agree with that.

One, because they were already minority browsers.

Two, if we want to get specifically into Edge details at the time Edge was already the browser with the highest adoption of Do-Not-Track even before the version that turned it on by default. Edge put the feature front-and-center in the Settings window and made it easy to find. Edge also did a very gentle prompt "Hey there's this new feature that could enhance your privacy. Do you want it on? [Learn More]" in the versions leading up to turning it on by default. Microsoft pointed out at the time that the leading feedback they kept getting from users from those prompts was "Obviously this is a good idea, why are you even asking, please turn it on by default." Most users that upgraded to the "on by default" version would have seen one of those prompts. A few were convinced by propaganda at the time that Microsoft was trying to "do some evil" (by asking if you wanted more privacy?) and switched to Chrome.

> And it's not like people were choosing Edge because it would opt them out.

I know I convinced a few people. Anecdata isn't data, but statistically Edge started briefly growing in users again right around that time. Not by much certainly (not enough to save Edge), but clearly some. (Some people were fed up with how hard Chrome made that setting to find.)

As a user, it was qualitatively better user experience with DNT for the brief windows where adtech actually abided by their "promises" (lol) and respected it. As an Edge user at the time, I don't think the web has felt as nice until Firefox added their "Enhanced" Tracking Protection, years later. (And Apple's similar tools just recently.)

> That's a completely negligible percent of people.

I think by definition it was not negligible if it spooked the adtech companies to quit so fast.

> Another way the two are different is very simple: If you had a big fraction of users manually flipping the switch, and the advertisers tried to cancel the feature because that was too many users, you could mobilize those tens of millions of people into a powerful political campaign to bake DNT into law.

I disagree. My entire point is that they never would have allowed it to get to "tens of millions" of people in the first place. Whether by skullduggery or passive aggressive PR notes doesn't matter. They very calculatedly stopped when it was a tiny fraction of people just enough to impact the bottom line. It's not a big assumption on my part that no matter how we got to that small of a fraction of people learning about the feature and actually using it, they would have always have stopped it before it became popular (whether or not you believe the skullduggery to be real or a conspiracy theory), at the very least because their shareholders would have demanded it because it was impacting perceived profits.

> As for the rest of your post, I'm confused about what you're accusing the Chrome devs in particular of doing? I agree that they're a big problem, see also flock, but with DNT they're not responsible for what the advertising group does.

I'm mostly admonishing all of Google for acting like an evil company. If we want to talk about the Chrome team's specific responsibilities: I believe that as a professional it is your job to make sure that you follow ethical standards. The Chrome team knows that their checks are signed by the adtech teams. That's a conflict of interest that makes it very hard to maintain professional ethics. I can't tell any individual developer on the Chrome team that they should stand up and walk away from that conflict of interest for the betterment of the web and the profession. How you navigate your ethics code is a personal matter. I can blame the team collectively for not standing up to the people writing their checks as a massive ethical failure. I doubt we'll see a Chrome dev team strike anytime soon, but that's within their rights.

> What could they have done better?

The obvious answer is a feature that was actually browser enforceable similar to today's Firefox's Enhanced Tracking Protection (which is good enough a lot of "publishers" call Firefox itself an "ad blocker" today, despite the fact that it blocks no ads just trackers), on by default and with an "opt out of privacy" model rather than an "opt in to privacy" wish-it-were.

It may have been "impossible" to do, because they would have actually needed to confront that conflict of interest in their hearts. They would have needed to tell their owners and masters that they were going to have to eat a couple of down quarters in profits until they either adjusted the market to charge appropriately for untracked advertising or managed to build a propaganda machine big enough to convince users in bulk that privacy wasn't in a user's best interest and that they should opt out of tracking protection.

But the guts to make that sort of ethical push, would have been the right thing to do, for everyone. Doing it then, and doing it with the majority browser, would have been an impactful statement. That would have been a "Do No Evil" Chrome moment for sure, and it is certainly obvious and easy to imagine that they had the power to do something like that, just not the ethics or morality.