[nimbius]

these web frameworks for privacy always give me a chuckle. DnT didnt work, why would this?

Advertising is an economy worth more than 7.4 trillion USD. it has evaded most attempts to regulate or restrict it in any meaningful sense in the 21st century. the GDPR serving as a bureaucratic organ to which advertisers must subscribe, or quietly ignore with all but the most modest and encumbered window dressings for the illusion of choice by the user.

you cannot restrict, limit, control, or meaningfully impact a 7.4 trillion dollar economy with a voluntary framework. this market rivals the GDP of many developed nations. it will simply spend its way out of any legal problem. there exists no fine that can tame it.

The only thing you can reasonably do in the face of something that evades even governments themselves, is to ship a built-in version of uBlock and noscript, and a blacklist of advertising provider DNS, that is enabled by default for the user. make cookies whitelist-only, and make counter-fingerprinting technology default.

you must do things that cause, as an organism, marketing and advertising agencies to recoil in terror. DoH is a good example, which rallied nearly every telecom provider in the US to lobby the federal government until Mozilla and others acquiesced to letting them join the club.

[jeroenhd]

If the CCPA does indeed interpret this as an opt-out signal, those 7.4 trillion are going to be at risk of a whole lot of (class action) lawsuits. The spec is trying to make itself applicable as an official, regulated signal. DNT couldn't, because Colorado (or more likely, a large donation by those 7.4 trillion dollars) decided that an opt-out cannot be the default.

The stupidest thing is that Google actually got in trouble for trying to restrict third party cookies by default. The UK competition watchdog agreed with advertising companies that Google making such a decision would be abuse of power and bad for competition. That's why they came up with this weird alternative ad system where your browser tracks your interests and shares them in request, so that ad companies can shut the fuck up about it.

Once Google is forced to sell Chrome to a third party, I hope third party cookies will finally be disabled by default.

[tbrownaw]

> because Colorado (or more likely, a large donation by those 7.4 trillion dollars) decided that an opt-out cannot be the default.

A setting left at the default value does not indicate that a person has taken action to express a preference.

It's not a bad thing, or proof of bribery or regulatory capture or whatever, if some jurisdictions decide to formally recognize this reality.

> The stupidest thing is that Google actually got in trouble for trying to restrict third party cookies by default. The UK competition watchdog agreed with advertising companies that Google making such a decision would be abuse of power and bad for competition.

From what I recall, Google was trying to grant themselves a unique privileged position where Google and Google alone would be able to track individuals across sites.

[SahAssar]

> there exists no fine that can tame it

This seems like an argument against either democracy or capitalism. Either we can never vote in lawmakers that would fine these companies into oblivion or there is no fine large enough that they would be compelled to change their ways.

Which one is it?