Of course it's dying. There is no acceptable solution that isn't on by default, and advertisers will never accept that because nobody would ever turn it off. Their business model would dry up and die. So they block it at every opportunity, because what else are they going to do? Change to a business model based on things people actually want? Ha! What an idea.
You seem to be assuming that the existing business model is one which people don't want. It allows websites to monetize using information that the vast majority of people don't care about, which allows most content on the internet to remain free. I'd say people are, by and large, pretty happy with this business model.
I want advertising. It tells me about things I might like.
You're perhaps one of the very very few people who dislike being told about things, but thankfully you're in the minority.
The whole "do not track us" idea is ridiculous and a 'moot' issue. Cookies aren't really necessary, you can track people server side based on their browser make up, and they won't know they're being tracked. 99.9% of browsers are completely unique and identifiable back to the computer.
If you really don't want to be tracked (<0.01% of users), then use TOR, lynx, adblock, disallow cookies, etc etc etc
Look also at the recent EU cookie laws, and how ridiculous and needlessly cumbersome they have made websites that have addopted it. Endless clicking confirmation boxes / dropdowns to say it's ok for them to store a cookie. We do not need more of this madness.
I'm curious, what business model do you think people want? Apps that offer ad-supported and paid versions tend to have many, many more ad-supported users, so I'm not convinced that's it.
That this is even a debate is preposterous to me. I am a buyer. I love to shop. I also love the internet. What I don't love is being FORCED to view advertising I have no desire to view. Is advertising a right? If so, I've certainly never heard of it. I personally could not care less if internet advertisers dropped dead of starvation. They have no inherent right to follow me around to check out what I am doing in my personal time just so they can MAYBE get me to buy something that will put money in their pockets and food in their mouths. I think it is time to send advertisers a message (SOPA/PIPA style). I think it is time to send congress a message that states that we DO NOT WANT forced advertising and we will not be silent until we get it. Opt-In is the only acceptable choice for a free society.
I certainly understand the ad industry wanting to make enough money to eat. I also understand the importance of advertising. It is a great way to raise capital while offering viewers a chance to see what products and services are out there. It is also a great way to financially support a site. I have made many purchases due to great advertising. But is it really their right to force ads on us while we have no right to a simple "leave me alone" button? Maybe there could be an option version of "do not track" that allows advertising based on the SITE information or adblocking that removes ALL ads. Then let the consumer choose. I would certainly accept a non-tracking option most of the time. Am I completely unique in this?
As for the argument that viewers will not opt-in to advertising, I simply laugh. I use "do not track" and ad blocking implementations extensively. However, I turn it off (my version of opting in to advertising) for family birthdays, anniversaries, and especially holidays. How else will I find the best deals? However, the rest of the time, I have absolutely no desire to see any Web page containing 50% (conservative for some sites) advertising. Unless I am completely unique in this world, I cannot imagine that I am the only individual who does this.
Again, why is a consumers right to be tracked or advertised versus a company's right to track me and advertise to me even a debate?
I can't get behind this. It's just some ads, chill out. Advertisers have the right to advertise and you have the right to ignore the advertising. Advertising is a form of speech just as the content you're going to the site to see. You say you understand the advertising industry and that sites are able to stay in business because they make money on the ads they show you but then you go on to basically say you think they have no right to do it. This sounds like entitlement to me. If I want to advertise on my own website then I shouldn't be stopped from doing so just because someone comes along and has a real hardline opinion on the matter.
You're also not being forced to view advertising in the same way you're not being forced to visit a website. To make this into some kind of high ideal/moral/philosophy is just silly. They're just ads. Go get adblock, don't click on the ads, or just stop visiting the sites that have them. A site you really like shows ads and so you think you're backed into a corner? No way. No site is obligated to present content to you in the way you like it. There's way too many people these days shouting about how they want their FREE internet services just the way they want it like it's their right or something. It's not anyone's right.
Now tracking, that's a different story. We should all have the right to opt out of tracking if we don't want it. But to say we should never have to see an ad because it might annoy us is just ridiculous.
'"The advertisers have been extraordinarily obstructionist, raising the same issues over and over again, forcing new issues that were not on the agenda, adding new issues that have been closed, and launching personal attacks," said Jonathan Mayer, a Stanford privacy researcher and Do Not Track technology developer who is involved in the negotiations.'
DNT is pretty laughably ill conceived. Vague definitions of what is able to be tracked, what constitutes a first party and third party (Is a browser vendor first party or third party?). Some of the major proponents are companies like Google and Microsoft, both with their respective gigantic ad platforms DART and Atlas. Would they be able to collect data directly from the browser and dominate the ad world? It's certain that if this were legislated that it would destroy the business model for many large companies. (Yahoo, ValueClick, AOL).
The existing legislation requires an opt-out policy from tracking. Advertisers must respect the user's choice with regards to targeted advertising. Does Microsoft turning on DNT by default represent the users choice or does it represent Microsoft's interests? What about third party identification for things like disqus? Sure we have ways to handle CORS today but what if there was a law (that only effected the USA) saying you were not allowed to "track" if you were a third party? If it's just about advancing web technologies why isn't this just a w3c proposal or RFC? What's wrong with the existing opt-out methods?
From what I see DNT is just a political tactic to gain power in the ad-world, not a way to protect the privacy of users.
Of course its dying. It's compeltely impractical and almost comical. There wa no reason to believe it would amount to anything but a publication in some journal.
This might be a naive idea, but it seems like you could throw noise into their system by having a program send out random requests, making their data less valuable.
[+] [-] Millennium|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bostonpete|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mibbitier|13 years ago|reply
You're perhaps one of the very very few people who dislike being told about things, but thankfully you're in the minority.
The whole "do not track us" idea is ridiculous and a 'moot' issue. Cookies aren't really necessary, you can track people server side based on their browser make up, and they won't know they're being tracked. 99.9% of browsers are completely unique and identifiable back to the computer.
If you really don't want to be tracked (<0.01% of users), then use TOR, lynx, adblock, disallow cookies, etc etc etc
Look also at the recent EU cookie laws, and how ridiculous and needlessly cumbersome they have made websites that have addopted it. Endless clicking confirmation boxes / dropdowns to say it's ok for them to store a cookie. We do not need more of this madness.
[+] [-] eli|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonymous|13 years ago|reply
1. Add another 400 code: "Privacy not allowed".
2. Browser displays dialog box "This site wants to track you. Yea/Nay?".
3. Everybody clicks Yea, since they want the site.
[+] [-] NaturalDoc|13 years ago|reply
I certainly understand the ad industry wanting to make enough money to eat. I also understand the importance of advertising. It is a great way to raise capital while offering viewers a chance to see what products and services are out there. It is also a great way to financially support a site. I have made many purchases due to great advertising. But is it really their right to force ads on us while we have no right to a simple "leave me alone" button? Maybe there could be an option version of "do not track" that allows advertising based on the SITE information or adblocking that removes ALL ads. Then let the consumer choose. I would certainly accept a non-tracking option most of the time. Am I completely unique in this?
As for the argument that viewers will not opt-in to advertising, I simply laugh. I use "do not track" and ad blocking implementations extensively. However, I turn it off (my version of opting in to advertising) for family birthdays, anniversaries, and especially holidays. How else will I find the best deals? However, the rest of the time, I have absolutely no desire to see any Web page containing 50% (conservative for some sites) advertising. Unless I am completely unique in this world, I cannot imagine that I am the only individual who does this.
Again, why is a consumers right to be tracked or advertised versus a company's right to track me and advertise to me even a debate?
[+] [-] bpatrianakos|13 years ago|reply
You're also not being forced to view advertising in the same way you're not being forced to visit a website. To make this into some kind of high ideal/moral/philosophy is just silly. They're just ads. Go get adblock, don't click on the ads, or just stop visiting the sites that have them. A site you really like shows ads and so you think you're backed into a corner? No way. No site is obligated to present content to you in the way you like it. There's way too many people these days shouting about how they want their FREE internet services just the way they want it like it's their right or something. It's not anyone's right.
Now tracking, that's a different story. We should all have the right to opt out of tracking if we don't want it. But to say we should never have to see an ad because it might annoy us is just ridiculous.
[+] [-] icebraining|13 years ago|reply
Advertising is speech (tracking aside). On one's own site, yes, we have a right to advertise.
I think it is time to send congress a message that states that we DO NOT WANT forced advertising and we will not be silent until we get it.
If you don't want advertising, you're free not to use websites with ads. Please don't fuck with free speech just because you don't like them.
Now, tracking is (IMO) a different issue and yes, it should be opt-in.
[+] [-] nodata|13 years ago|reply
So get a better Chair.
[+] [-] eggsby|13 years ago|reply
The existing legislation requires an opt-out policy from tracking. Advertisers must respect the user's choice with regards to targeted advertising. Does Microsoft turning on DNT by default represent the users choice or does it represent Microsoft's interests? What about third party identification for things like disqus? Sure we have ways to handle CORS today but what if there was a law (that only effected the USA) saying you were not allowed to "track" if you were a third party? If it's just about advancing web technologies why isn't this just a w3c proposal or RFC? What's wrong with the existing opt-out methods?
From what I see DNT is just a political tactic to gain power in the ad-world, not a way to protect the privacy of users.
[+] [-] yalogin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] splawn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sonabinu|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmc|13 years ago|reply