[unethical_ban]

There has to be a happy middle between "no protection" and "complete uniqueness"

The web without ad blocking is revolting. Browsers building in these features makes them more popular.

Aside: Fuck the Washington Post. They have a line in their privacy policy that acknowledges the existence of "Do Not Track" flags in browsers. Their acknowledgement: since there is no industry standard for responding to it, they ignore it.

[kube-system]

The actual industry standard for Do Not Track is to ignore it. It is deprecated. The browser we are talking about in this post, Firefox, removed support for Do Not Track in February of this year.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/...

[unethical_ban]

To my credit, WaPo should have said that instead of saying there isn't a standard. The standard is gone.

[kube-system]

I was a bit glib with my answer, but I don’t think what they said is wrong. Just because something is a written standard doesn’t mean it is an observed standard. WaPo was clearly referring to the lack of an observed standard. I don’t think they were denying the existence of API specifications, nor do I think that’s a reasonable interpretation. They’re saying that nobody treated it the same way, which is true, and it’s also the reason why it was deprecated in the first place.

[evertedsphere]

wow lmao

> Do Not Track. Some web browsers may transmit a “do-not-track” signal. Because there currently is no industry standard concerning how to treat such signals, the Services currently do not take action in response to do not track signals. We respond to legally recognized browser-based opt out signals such as the Global Privacy Control signal for California residents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/privacy-policy/

[hmry]

Read: we ignore it because it's not legally enforced