[roenxi]

> The main problem with DNT was the lack of legal and regulatory backing it received. Website owners could decide if they'd observe the DNT signal and there were no legal repercussions if they chose not to. This is where GPC is different.

This sounds like an attempt to regulate the entire internet.

[pessimizer]

Ideally it would be an attempt to regulate more than that. If I've set a flag that indicates a preference about the use of my personal information that I have some legal right to demand, I want it enforced. You don't get to ignore my request because internet.

[whatshisface]

It's just an extension of copyright, which already regulates the entire internet. You should have the copyright over your mouse clicks, plus 100 years after the death of the author.

[throw10920]

How is GPC an extension of copyright?

[whatshisface]

Laws for GPC are an extension of copyright, that prevents companies from selling works that (in theory) belong to us.

[IshKebab]

It's no more regulation than GDPR. They're just trying to make GDPR less insanely annoying.

But given the EU's track record I give this a 0.1% chance of success.

[drpossum]

So what do you refer to all the other stuff that is accepted as "the internet" but is not websites?

[roenxi]

... the internet? I get the impression you're trying to ask something that you haven't articulated. I don't know why it'd be assumed that this approach will stop at websites.