[DufusM]

While it is reasonable to assume a user's intent, it is also reasonable to assume a content publisher's intent to monetize their content. An advertising-funded web is the reality of today, unless Microsoft is proposing a radical change in this model.

The concept of Do Not Track, despite the emotional appeal of the name, essentially seems to be a compromise between privacy and advertising, keeping the advertising-based model intact while also allowing the extremely privacy focused (minority set of) individuals to have things their way.

Turning DNT on by default is a hardline approach and violates the spirit of this compromise. Instead, there needs to be more effort to constructively work with content providers, privacy advocates and advertisers to come up with a more explicit protocol that satisfies everyone's interests.

[wpietri]

Your theory appears to be that the minority of privacy-focused individuals are weird outliers in preference. but my impression is that they are weird outliers in knowledge.

When I talk with non-technical relatives about their internet use, privacy is a major issue for them.

They know, for example, that Facebook knows a lot about them, which scares them. They don't know how much ad providers track them, but if you tell them they're more scared. Facebook is at least a known entity that provides them some benefit. Shadowy private companies profiling them is a lot harder to get comfortable with.

[DufusM]

I agree there is a problem with the lack of knowledge, but I wouldn't assume that it is all regarding "shadowy private companies". A number of public privacy scares like the concern of Gmail reading people's email seem to fall into the same category.

Again, there are good and bad players on all sides, but my point was simply that ignoring reality and making a complete swing to no monetization for content seems to assume all players on one side are bad. A more open standard that allows clear knowledge is probably a better direction for Microsoft to pursue.