[qntm]

This is the W3C's problem. "An ordinary user agent MUST NOT send a Tracking Preference signal without a user’s explicit consent"? How, exactly, are they intending to detect the user's explicit consent via the medium of HTTP headers? Why introduce a header which almost everybody in the world would probably want to use by default in every one of their HTTP requests and then say that you can't do that? What if I chose my browser specifically because it has DNT by default? Why introduce a header which doesn't do anything unless you really really want it to?

The Explicit Consent Requirement is nonsensical. But then the DNT header itself is also nonsensical, because there's no legislation or tangible benefit to make request handlers respect it.

Nobody should be tracked unless they've explicitly asked for it.

[huggyface]

Why introduce a header which almost everybody in the world would probably want to use by default in every one of their HTTP requests and then say that you can't do that?

Ask everyone in the world if they "don't want to be tracked" and 100% will say yes.

Ask everyone in the world if they "don't want to be tracked, understanding that is the economic foundation for almost all of the content they enjoy and thus they will either need to directly pay or go without" and somewhere approaching 0% will say yes.

DNT is like commercial skippers on PVRs -- it's beneficial to most user's experience if a small enough group of users partake, but very detrimental if a large enough group uses it.

[qntm]

> Ask everyone in the world if they "don't want to be tracked, understanding that is the economic foundation for almost all of the content they enjoy and thus they will either need to directly pay or go without" and somewhere approaching 0% will say yes.

No, something approaching 100% of users will still say yes, adding that robust economic foundation is the content providers' problem, not the users'.

The content providers will then close down or find alternative business models.

[huggyface]

No, something approaching 100% of users will still say yes, adding that robust economic foundation is the content providers' problem, not the users'.

Who do you think "users" are? HN denizens?

Users -- most especially those using Internet Explorer -- are average people who are entirely unconcerned about tracking cookies. They really aren't. They don't care whether you know that they visit Facebook and TMZ. They care that they can access those sites for free, and anything that threatened that would be a threat to them.

There is a serious detachment from reality that occurs in discussions like this.

[jlarocco]

I don't know where you're getting your data, but I don't think most people are too concerned about paying for things.

Of course, if you ask them, "Do you want to pay for this or do you want it free?", they'll choose free.

But if you don't ask and just charge for it, I don't think most people would mind. It's the way things worked for thousands of years. It's the way things still work for every product in the world except online content. Maybe it's a huge issue for you, but most people just don't mind paying for products and content they find worthwhile.

[huggyface]

Virtually every paywall implementation has been a dismal failure. One of the greatest ways to get a viral message on the move is to claim that a common service will soon charge (see ICQ, Facebook, MSN Messenger, etc).

Maybe it's a huge issue for you

Except that I've made the opposite painfully clear over and over again. But you apparently thought this would work as some sort of position antidote, pretending that I'm some sort of abnormally cheap person?

I am actually aware of the world around me. I watch how things work. I pay attention. My observations are not personal.

[jlarocco]

It's a self-imposed problem. Of course people will object now that they're used to getting a site's content for "free". The sooner those sites die, the better, IMO. If there are costs associated with creating the content, then it's a stupid idea to act like there aren't.

Sites and services that charge from the beginning, and/or offer a very clear value added payment option from the beginning are usually successful. Success being defined as self-sufficient without violating user privacy and whoring themselves to advertisers.

[nudded]

And how do you know this?

[MatthewPhillips]

In other words, if you word the question to what your position is, you can get most people to agree with you.

[huggyface]

Is reality really a "position"?

Personally I think sites should honor the DNT header by implementing a paywall for such users (really the same holds true for Adblock patrons).

Ad-supported sites have an implicit two-way contract that you get content that you obviously want in return for providing advertiser value. If you don't want to provide advertiser value, partake of micropayments or some other mechanisms. As someone who would make use of those alternate payment mechanisms, I would welcome that.

[MatthewPhillips]

> Is reality really a "position"?

Both of the wordings you provided are positions. The first contained no context and the second is opinionated.

> Personally I think sites should honor the DNT header by implementing a paywall for such users (really the same holds true for Adblock patrons).

Personally I think tracking should be opt-in (by law) and that websites should have to adjust accordingly (whether that be putting up a pay-wall, finding an alternative revenue stream, making less revenue, or going out of business).

> Ad-supported sites have an implicit two-way contract that you get content that you obviously want in return for providing advertiser value.

Contracts which potentially do harm upon a person should never be implicit. Knowledge of cookies should not be a requirement for internet use. All contracts should be explicit, and agree upon by both parties.

[huggyface]

the second is opinionated

It is a statement of reality. Choices can have consequences, and giving someone a choice with the implied notion that it is all win -- ignoring the very real consequences -- is a profound lie. The sophistry, and intense myopia around this conversation pushes such limits of intellectual dishonesty that I have to wonder what the agendas really are.

Just to be clear, my position is that the world would be a much better world minus all advertisements (television, the web, print, etc). I believe in direct compensation, micropayments, and all of that. But a lot of people think they can have their cake and eat it too, yet they can't.

[MatthewPhillips]

I think you are misinterpreting people's objection to tracking. It's not that we don't want Google to make money, it's that we don't want our privacy violated. And if Google's business model is to violate people's privacy; that's an invalid business model. Period.

And just to be clear, the internet existed before tracking was widespread, your predictions on what it will be like without it are speculative.

[whyenot]

Ask everyone in the world if they "don't want to be tracked, understanding that is the economic foundation for almost all of the content they enjoy and thus they will either need to directly pay or go without" and somewhere approaching 0% will say yes.

In other words, lie to them? Of course some consumers would change their minds.

[snowwrestler]

> Ask everyone in the world if they "don't want to be tracked, understanding that is the economic foundation for almost all of the content they enjoy and thus they will either need to directly pay or go without" and somewhere approaching 0% will say yes.

That is pretty strong hyperbole. Individual tracking is not an essential component of an advertising business model. The print and TV industries both created tremendous economic growth with an advertising model, despite not being able to track individual users. Instead companies developed a wide variety of statistical tools to analyze their markets and advertising ROI.

[huggyface]

Were you online around, say, 1993? That was when the reality of the terrible non-performance of internet advertising really hit home -- the performance of most internet ads beyond below abysmal unless you used the most egregious of tactics (popups, popunders, etc).

Doubleclick -- the nefarious agent of evil -- essentially single handedly changed that by building up user profiles by tracking, with which they could individualize ads to a great enough degree that performance was somewhat useful.

What I described isn't hyperbole at all -- the actual industry already went through this.

[snowwrestler]

But what do you mean by "performance"?

You are talking about how the advertising industry went from measuring ads statistically, to measuring them by direct action--the click. Before the Internet, the only "ads" that were measured by direct action were coupons, because stores could keep track of redemption transactions. Other than that, it was understood that the value of ads could not be correlated to direct actions by consumers. Sort of like how no single thunderstorm can be directly attributed to global warming.

It's not that online ads perform abysmally. All ads perform abysmally when they are measured by the metric of direct action at the moment of viewing--the Internet was just the first time that could be directly measured on every ad. DoubleClick and others established a competitive advantage by being able to slightly reduce just how abysmal the measurements were. They spent a lot of time and money "educating" brand owners that direct clicks were the "right" way to measure their value.

The unfortunate side effect was that the shift of ad dollars from TV and print to online was greatly slowed. Brand managers look at the super-low online click numbers (even the best numbers from profile-driven networks) and say "what a waste of money, let's keep the bulk in prime time TV." They get numbers from the TV industry that indicate that millions and millions of people saw their ad--and they are not under any illusion that these people are doing anything about it that very moment. TV ads are held to a much lower standard of action, and therefore TV ads attract much higher levels of investment.

Why should online ads be measured by clicks?? The assumption that they should is quite recent (in the context of the full history of advertising), but already deeply held and rarely considered. But it's been incredibly harmful to the efforts to shift industries like TV and newspapers online.

[makomk]

You may not even have to go to that length - ask people if they want online ads to be more relevant to their interests and quite a lot would probably say yes, if only to get away from all the obnoxious monkey-punching Flash ads.

[kenjackson]

Of course people want ads to be more relevant, but at what cost. You want your TV ads to be more relevant, but you probably don't want someone living with you to report to the networks what interests you each day.

Ask people the question straight up: "Do you want more relevant ads, where relevancy is determined by tracking cookies that track what sites you go to on the web." I bet most people say, "Give me the less relevant ads".

[natrius]

Your hypothetical is excellent. I think most people would choose the relevant ads because there are more factors at play. Consider television. If people could give networks information about themselves in exchange for only having to watch one well-targeted, high revenue ad, most people would give their information.

[Dylan16807]

I agree. If you let me pick a couple ad categories to be shown to me, like electronics/programming/whatever, I can see myself agreeing. But I don't want you recording my activity.

[huggyface]

You want your TV ads to be more relevant, but you probably don't want someone living with you to report to the networks what interests you each day.

Is your analogy perhaps a bit ridiculous?

Tell most people that their PVR is going to report usage data and most would click yes in an instant. Most don't care if some faceless corporation knows how much American Chopper they watch. Many applications (including Apple and Microsoft products) start their journey with a user with the notification that usage data is going to be reported. I am just guessing, but I would wager that 99%+ click okay to that.

[Dylan16807]

It's not really about what users would answer on a survey. The point of the system is to turn off tracking on users that care enough to go press a settings button. This is an extremely small hurdle, but it's there for a reason. Because a lot of people that might say 'no' don't actually care. So the site can make a lot of tracking money without upsetting anyone.