Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

W3C Rejects Ad Industry's Do-Not-Track Proposal

Posted by Soulskill on from the don't-come-'round-here-with-that-nonsense dept.

itwbennett writes "The W3C's Tracking Protection Working Group, which is mainly concerned with standardizing the mechanisms for server-side compliance with do-not-track requests, has rejected a proposal by from the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) that would have allowed advertisers to continue profiling users who had asked not to be tracked. The proposal would also have allowed them to 'retarget' ads to those users by showing ads relevant to one site or transaction on all subsequent sites they visited, according to the co-chairs of the W3C's Tracking Protection Working Group. The working group co-chairs also said that they planned to reject proposals similar to those made by the DAA."

10 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Do Not Track... by Synerg1y · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most useless checkbox in the history of browsers.

    1. Re:Do Not Track... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It is now. Advertisers sound like they were willing to play along if W3C was up for some compromise. W3C tells them to go get stuffed, oh-and-will-you-please-respect-this-DNT-flag?

      Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, any bets on whether the advertisers just take their ball, go home, and ignore any DNT requests?

    2. Re:Do Not Track... by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem there is that the advertisers forgot the old adage "you don't shit where you eat".

      If they had simply shown a few ads and made sure their servers were up to the task, few if any would have even bothered with ad-blockers. But no, They had to plaster the page with jumping singing dancing ads that pop up and pop under and triple (or worse) the page load time. Then to top it off, they didn't even bother to make sure the ads weren't drive-by viruses or illegal scams.

      Since all of that wasn't enough, they decided to also become internet stalkers.

      It's only natural that people came to consider most any ad they see on the web to be a probable scam and to run ad blockers to avoid the assault on their senses and more that a few infections as well.

      Then finally, when given a chance to restore some tiny shred of good will, they decided to ignore DNT.

    3. Re:Do Not Track... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Advertisers sound like they were willing to play along if W3C was up for some compromise

      DNT is a compromise. If we were unwilling to compromise, we would build ad-blockers into browsers as a default, much like pop-up blocking ten years ago. It was because of people like you who would not stop whining about how important advertiser dollars are to keep the web alive that we even considered something like DNT. It was because advertisers promised that they really do respect our wishes, that ad blockers and legal restrictions on tracking are not needed, that DNT was ever considered by anyone.

      The advertisers showed their true colors. They never wanted a compromise, they just wanted a facade that allows them to pretend they respect us while continuing to do what they have done all along.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  2. Advertising is butts by Reverand+Dave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Marketing departments are a bunch of assholes.

    --
    I got here through a series of tubes
  3. Re:Is it true Apache webservers block DNT? by phizi0n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apache ignores DNT from versions of IE that have it enabled by default because it's supposed to be something that the user specifically enables, not a blanket "hey ad industry, completely ignore this because it's always on" option.

  4. Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DNT had exactly one use: to determine whether or not advertisers respect the wishes of people who do not want their browsing habits tracked. The verdict is in, and to nobody's surprise advertisers have no respect for anyone. Now we know that we are justified in using ad-blocking plugins and building browsers that block ads by default.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are acting like tracking and advertising are inseparable. They are not, you can advertise without tracking people and you can make money doing so. I do not want to be tracked, and the only technical solution at this point is to block advertisements -- because even loading a static image from an advertiser will be used as a data point to track me.

      If a website wants me to view its ads, it should refuse the business of advertisers that create privacy-invading ads. If websites were standing up for their users they would not be at risk of becoming collateral damage in this fight.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Not useless, but its usefulness is now over by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is exactly the point.

      If advertisers DID heed the DNT request and not track those who see their ads, fewer people would even bother to reach for ad blockers. But the greed was stronger. Why only benefit from people seeing your ads when you can as well sell their profile while you're at it?

      And now the greedy call those defending against their greed greedy. That's really rich.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Re:Lack of Trust by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    SPAM is unsolicited email sent on your dollar, consuming your resources.

    When my CPU is spinning because of your Javascript-super-fancy-tracks-all-the-things advertisement, you are consuming my resources. When I have to download a megabyte of Javascript/Flash/whatever to see your ads, you are consuming my resources. When I have to spend time trying to navigate around annoying hover ads, you are consuming my resources.

    At least when I receive spam, I know the spammer has no idea who I am or whether or not I opened their message. Website advertisers try hard to track everything, even when you are very clearly trying to stop them; that is what DNT has demonstrated.

    Ads are implicitly requested when you visit an ad-supported site

    No, the page is what is requested. My browser is not obligated to do anything at all with the webpage your server sends it. There is no implicit request; you explicitly asked my browser to request ads from the advertisers you choose to do business with.

    People making a big deal about this should perhaps rethink why they are entitled to someone else's work (the website) without respecting their terms (the ads).

    You put your work on the open web. You did not put it behind a paywall. You did not force me to view your ads before seeing your page.

    Nobody wrote an ad blocker because they were angry about textual ads or banner ads. Ad blockers exists because the advertisers have no respect for anyone's desire to not be tracked, to not have hover ads, pop-ups, pop-unders, Flash, Java, and other adware annoyances. Advertisers have shot themselves in the foot with their own greed, and if your website is not saying, "No, I do not want you to piss off my users with these antics" then your website is part of the problem.

    --
    Palm trees and 8