Advertisers slam Microsoft over 'Do not track' decision
Microsoft's decision to enable the "Do not track" feature by default in Internet Explorer 10 should please privacy advocates, but it has sparked condemnation from the online advertising industry. Microsoft made the announcement on IE10 with the release of the (probably) final beta for Windows 8 on Thursday, and Brendon Lynch, …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: DNT - now rendered useless
There was an agreement. It was voluntary. We don't know if the advertisers abided by it or not
We know now that they will most certainly not abide by it, rendering DNT obsolete across all browsers and platforms.
I fail to see how you think is is not an MS problem.
Re: DNT - now rendered useless
I call 'Another Shill'. Odd how many people really, really hate this, isn't it?
I hope this won't come off as mindless MS bashing, but I'm not sure this is a really good idea. I'm worried that advertisers will see this as a reason to simply ignore the Do Not Track header. They will argue that because it's on by default, some people who do want their "service" may overlook it and unwittingly be excluded. For whatever tiny fraction of the population that is, this is no doubt true. And since IE is bundled with computers, Microsoft is in an especially poor position to argue the point. If it was say Opera, they could easily say that since the feature was publicized, by choosing that browser, people had already made their intentions clear.
Of course out-in tracking would be the ideal, but I'm just not sure trying to force the issue this way is a good move strategically, at least at this stage. And I have to admit it makes me suspect MS is doing this more to look like they care than because they think it's the best way to protect people's privacy.
@Mr Handle
TBH I really think it's time a stand was taken against the slimy bastards, and no, I didn't take it as MS bashing.
More likely reason
I think it's to stuff up Google than anything else. I assume Microsoft will still happily gather data through their Windows Live sign on mechanism and apps tied to id. By denying other advertisers that data or the means to gather information about Windows users at all, that information becomes more valuable.
Re: More likely reason
Do you seriously think Google won't do the same data gathering for their logged in users?
Stick your adverts where I can't see 'em!
I try to block all adverts, any that slip through I ignore, If I want a product I will search for it - I don't want it cluttering up my screens. For the same reason I never watch live TV, I record and skip through the crap.
"They'll just ignore it now"
Advertisers have always used the "implicit consent" model to allow them to body-swerve data protection laws. Once DNT is in place, explicit refusal becomes the norm and the implicit consent loophole vanishes. If the Ad men do just ignore it, then roll on the class law suits.
Re: "They'll just ignore it now"
How? The agreement wasn't a legally-binding contract where the advertisers could take MS to court for Breach of Contract. There are only two ways a lawsuit could happen: if the browser makers and ad agencies inked a legally-binding contract (not gonna happen--lawyers are too savvy to rope themselves in like this and very keen on how to slip legal nooses) or if the lawmakers change the consent laws to require informed consent (also never gonna happen--sure people could get mad, but mad enough to create whole-cloth opposition candidates capable of withstanding mudslinging ads from the masters of ad making? No way. Something of that caliber takes a threat to their livelihood, such as laws altering job prospects, to draw up that much attention).
Add an ad-block in IE, show a wizard to setup it on install then it's a nice start.
Do-not track is just useless compared to a true ad-blocker.
New course for advertisers
How about, instead of just ignoring the do-not-track, advertisers try to educate the users?
"We've detected that your browser is currently not allowing us to fully assist you by showing relevant informational content on the pages you visit. Our mission is the continued improvement of your web experience. By choosing to allow us a bit of insight into your life, you can dramatically improve your browsing experience."
Or some such bulls**t
But then they'd of course have to try and justify their tracking to the people they're tracking, which would also raise awareness of the fact that it's happening, and people are just so much easier to track, when they're unaware of it.
"We hope that many consumers will make a conscious choice to share information in order to receive more personalized ad content"
fuck the fuck off.
How long before the adcos are arguing over the meaning of 'tracking'?
Re: BOO HOO
And I went long on Alligator Tears just before the bell yesterday ... Damn Free-tards, no respect for Capitalism. CitiBank told me London was safe from you heathens.
Ad content? Not content.
"We hope that many consumers will make a conscious choice to share information in order to receive more personalized ad content. For us, that is the key distinction,"
In reality consumers do not want unsolicited ad content to be delivered to them at all. I do need advertising but I need it to be available when I look for it, so when I want something I can find out what's available, where from and how much it costs. Irritating ads that are shoved in my face at other times are likely to be counter-productive, if I take any notice of them at all. Normally i wouldn't notice if ads are targetted or not.
As if the ad pushers were ever going to adhere to "do not track" anyway - voluntarily or not.
Half these posts are typical stupid kneejerk MS bashing
This is about do not track, not 'I hate adverts'. You'll still see adverts whether it is enabled or not unless you install an ad blocker. The question is whether they can stalk you round the internet.
The advertisers made the default behavior loophole, not MS. All MS have done is implement best practice as a default and in doing so shed light on the gaping holes in DNT enforcement.
Re: Half these posts are typical stupid kneejerk MS bashing
And the admakers are getting wise to ad blockers. More and more you're seeing ad blocker blockers and critical programs tied to the same servers as the ad makers, essentially tying the content to the ads in such a way as to be nigh-impossible to block (block the ad, block the content). With some sites starved for revenue, it's either this or the login wall.
Hahahahaah...
Poor scumbag advertisers. That's all.
Good for Microsoft. Let's hope others follow suit.
Advertisers pissing, moaning, whining
Ahh, music to my ears.
Big ups to Microsoft, just this once.
This isn't the only move they've made in this direction recently. I was pleasantly surprised, when I installed the latest Win8 preview in Virtualbox, to find that the list of things Microsoft wanted to dial home for under "Customise Settings" were now all set to "off" by default, where in earlier versions they were all on by default.
Intentional to undermine the web yet again!
Looks to me like there is a concerted effort to get us all onto apps?
I can't help but think that the open web is a hindrance to profit/advert control.
Adobe Flash was the first target, this is looks just an extension of that.
continued.......
...............and obviously some web site make lots of money but for most the profits are tiny and need any help they can get.
You don't get ought for nowt.
Why should it make the online advertisers nervous? They'll just ignore Do Not Track, at least for IE10 users. This totally defeats the point of the feature.
Like this is going to make a difference anyway...
If Microsoft left it switched off by default, the advertisers would just turn round and say "only the privacy freaks wanted it, and they don't see our adverts anyway so DNT is pointless". It's a no-win situation either way for the consumer, let alone Microsoft.
"Self-regulation" just means that the foxes vote to "protect" the hen-house - and we all know how that's going to end.
Scum
"...the advertising world would regulate itself and honor "Do not track", so long as browser manufacturers didn't make it a default setting."
I think this says all that anyone needs to know about the morals of the advertising industry; "we'll agree to honour "do not track" as long as you don't enable it and most users don't know about it". It's just like all the other "opt out" schemes like the one for junk (non-e) mail. They really are scum of the first order.
Some people are still confused
I am surprised at the number of people patting themselves on the back saying that Microsoft is finally catering to its "customers".
Sorry to rain on your parade, people, but if you and I might just benefit from this <ahem> bold move, for one thing it's not sure, because advertisers will most likely change their mode of operation, and for two, Microsoft does not consider you and me to be its customers.
Microsofts customers are RIAA/MPAA, the Fortune 1000s and any other big company that gives them millions every year.
If WE were considered its customers, we wouldn't have had to go through Vista's awful UAC shenanigans, we wouldn't have Windows-based DRM and Windows would ignore DVD regions while asking us if we wanted to allow User Restrictions on the DVDs that we watch on our PCs (you know, those annoying unskippable previews that were already boring when we bought the DVD ten years ago).
But because it's the big spenders in suits that Microsoft caters to, we are stuck with "functionality" that does not benefit us, but benefits the corporations. THEY are Microsoft's customers, we are just the sheep that Microsoft fleeces in between big contracts.
Re: Some people are still confused
"Microsoft does not consider you and me to be its customers. Microsofts customers are RIAA/MPAA, the Fortune 1000s and any other big company that gives them millions every year."
Millions every year? :D Microsoft's revenue for 2011 was 69 billion. Doctor Evil, is that you? Also, when and why did the RIAA/MPAA "give" Microsoft millions every year?
"If WE were considered its customers, we wouldn't have had to go through Vista's awful UAC shenanigans, we wouldn't have Windows-based DRM and Windows would ignore DVD regions while asking us if we wanted to allow User Restrictions on the DVDs that we watch on our PCs (you know, those annoying unskippable previews that were already boring when we bought the DVD ten years ago)."
And without the DRM, I would not be able to rent movies online. Or subscribe to a cheap all you can listen to music service. As to DVD regions... same as with the player under your TV: get one that isn't region locked. This may come as a shock to you but Microsoft don't manufacture DVD drives. Region encoding is set in the drives firmware. I know because I can remember flashing that firmware to get rid of region control on my LINUX box.
"But because it's the big spenders in suits that Microsoft caters to, we are stuck with "functionality" that does not benefit us, but benefits the corporations. THEY are Microsoft's customers, we are just the sheep that Microsoft fleeces in between big contracts."
Which of course is why some of these big companies are now angry with Microsoft for setting Do Not Track by default rather than allowing them to track the "sheep" like they'd want? In other news, War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength; and we have always been at war with Oceania.
Where there are a small percent of sites on the web run by enthusiasts who did it for a hobby instead of a business most sites are runs to make money, so if they have no physical products to see then they need to make money somehow hence ads.
As much as i don't like ads myself i realise they are necessary for sites like the register to exist and still be free to view, the more people go out of the way to block ads from showing the more sites will have to find other ways to make revenue such as going behind a pay wall.
This is true and I agree. But this is not about Ads directly. This is about Do Not Track. I.e. following your online presence from website to website. The Register are still free to display ads when you come here (and I don't block them either, actuallly. The Registrer is one of the few sites I visit where the ads are likely to interest me and get my clicks). However, it prevents an advertiser tracking you from The Register, to New York Times to donkeyporn.com and back again. So agree with your point, but Do Not Track is not about blocking ads, but monitoring your online behaviour.
Probably google related
This is a two fingers up to Google imo.
Google is a big competitor for Microsoft and MS are losing the battle of the browsers and search engines.
So this move will hurt Google advertising revenue.
I can't think of a single entity in all of technology that Window 8 doesn't offend in some way. This is going to be interesting.
Open Letter to Advertisers
Go fuck yourselves.
Sincerely,
Everyone
The gesture is appreciated
From a company as large as Microsoft it sends a message that the ad pimps can't always expect to get their own way. However its a sad reflection of the world we live in that it's down to a self interested 'business decision' rather than a democratically driven and legally binding choice, emphasising, as always, that its just about the money.
Good for them
DNT on by default? Good!!
The "tracking" of people across web sites is an EXPLOIT of an unintended side-effect of the technology designed for web sites THAT THE USERS VISIT to "maintain state" between pages... Examples of maintaining state include logging in, remember me systems, shopping carts, site preferences...
Advertisers can still advertise without tracking, sites hosting adverts won't suddenly not be able to have adverts. Their complaining is like some script kiddie complaining that Microsoft fixed a security flaw that let them take over a remote system, or a WOW cheater complaining that Blizzard shut down an exploit that gave them an unfair advantage.
It is precisely this sort of thing that has prompted the EU to investigate privacy, and you end up getting these silly laws that mean even "1st party" cookies are now forbidden unless the user explicitly says yes, and if the user says no to a prompt, guess what, you can't remember that choice, so the user is asked again, and again. Web sites are forced to show little banners, like the register.co.uk rather ironically covering up the privacy policy link (oops).
Bitch and whine all you like advertisers, I'm with Microsoft on this one!
Re: Good for them
Bitch and whine all you like advertisers
Who the flock like advertisers?!
I for one do not believe in unsolicited ads. While spam/unsolicited mail is illegal, unsolicited flash/irritating/popping/walking/brain sucking shizz known as online ads is actually quite ok.
I do hope the entire biz model of 'freeee' stuff paid by the previously mentioned shizz would go away for good.
"...it has sparked condemnation from the online advertising industry."
Gosh, really? My nose bleeds for them.
The online advertising agency...
...can go pound salt where the Sun don't shine!
Most people prefer to not be abused by advertising SPAM. For those who do want to be bombarded daily, there is an opt IN option for those needing abuse.
Ohhh MS, you have done it again. FCC investigation please.
I can only conclude that MS has done this with full knowledge it will kill DNT dead by being in breach of the agreement, which is what the ad industry wants.
Frankly this deserves investigation by FCC and EU bodies.
Some people somewhere are having a drink and a good laugh at the rest of us. Bastards.....
Re: Ohhh MS, you have done it again. FCC investigation please.
On what basis would there be an FCC investigation? Do you assume that every advertiser in the world has a right to know everything you do and that they have a right to put a tracker in your car and on your credit card and telly and land line and so MS allowing the user to stop this happening may be something dangerous.
The truth is, for once, MS have done the right thing. Not necessarily for the right reasons but still...
Much as I hate MS I cant find fault with this move. Businesses have no special rights on the internet - just because it can make life easy for us doesn’t give them any right to fuck with that. I just wish MS had realised this 20 years ago - we would be in a very different internet now.
Microsoft is bad? Maybe. This is bad? No.
Surely this is only a good thing?
Even if Microsoft has done this to completely blow apart the DNT setting due to the agreement it would not be set to on by default it doesn't matter. All this does is take apart a system that was, clearly, already broken. I don't see how in any way this is a bad thing. Whether Microsoft are evil is up for debate but this particular action in isolation is only a good thing.
Even if it does make things worse for now. Destroying a lie isn't much different than exposing a half truth.
Who cares, Firefox still beats it; Microsoft is an OAP, W8 an OAP fart, IE is a deposit.
Internet pages became so clogged with Ads that I have NoScript, AdBlock+, Ghostery, RequestPolicy and other extensions installed in Firefox by default, even at work, because I got totally fed up with page load sluggishness (really obvious on Fibre or busy work LANs!), visual clutter overload, and obvious attempts at brainwashing.
Even worse for advertisers is ad blockers are pretty much compulsory on mobiles because bandwidth use can cost money and time, and ads are often bloated, so filtering them out can save money and time.
Face it advertisers, if we want stuff, we will look for it, trying to cold sell us stuff when we are not looking for it is the past; this is a buyers market now, we make the rules now; so tough! Haven't advertisers realised that price comparison sites, cash back sites and search/index sites exists because this is a buyers market; basically online Ads are obsolete except for these sites and retailer sites.
Business better pay attention, because I'll probably have valuable highly liquid savings even after the pound currencies crashes and will only spend some if something is useful to me or amuses me.
Wait a minute...
... did I read that right? "the advertising world would regulate itself and honor "Do not track", so long as browser manufacturers didn't make it a default setting"...?
In other words, when browser makers are starting to enable privacy by default, the ad industry sees that as a license to ignore user privacy preferences completely?
If you need any more reasons than that to enable DnT and privacy modes globally, you must be working at the Facebook HQ.
tracking
I'm not worried about advertiser tracking as much I LOVE DIET COKE! as the possibility of their editing your online posts on the fly.
To track or to not track..
"It has worked with Microsoft and the government for over three years on proposals to ensure privacy and still allow tracking without "Do not track" being turned on by default, it said, and now Redmond has acted unilaterally."
Did anyone else need to reread this a couple times before they got what was being said? So they want to track, even though consumers don't want to be tracked. And MS nixed that, instead making it the customer's choice.
And somehow, they're wrong for that decision. Is it any wonder we hate the advertising industry?
Advertising and tracking is a double-edged sword.
The MS move is certainly a game changer. Whether for the better or the worse remains to be seen. No matter how much you hate advertising, it pays the bills for the internet. If it dries up as a source of revenue, and the MS move certainly moves it in that direction, something will need to replace it.
That being said, in this one instance I think MS correctly picked the moral option.
A lot of people have over looked the fact that online advertising actually helps maintain the internet. Yeah it might be a crappy model and not very well regulated but "do not track" is no where near a solution. Its just hiding the the issue. The money brought in from advertising helps company, charity, hobby and other websites to keep running. Without this inward money what do you think will happen?
I understand Microsoft might(yeah might..) be trying to do the right thing (for once). I for one dislike being track so i can understand why people would be happy about this. However, they should of considered many of the alternatives that have already been posted in the comments here. The move they have just taken directly harms the internet. Very stupid move Microsoft.
Lets watch the prices across the internet go up as MS release yet more crap on the world.
and yes i know this post is about do not track and not adverts directly but the money drop involved is all the same.
This topic is closed for new posts.
