Hacker News Reader

Comment by gyardley | Hacker News Reader

Google really should have the cojones to stand up and state their actual position plainly, which as far as I can tell is this:

"If you haven't taken an active, positive step to block our +1 buttons, we're going to assume you don't really care and we'll do whatever we can to show them to you, no matter what your browser's default settings are. Why? Well, because we think the default settings are bullshit, and 99 times out of 100 they're only that way because they're the default. They don't reflect actual user preferences, they reflect other browsers messing with our business plans."

Not only is that an intellectually honest position, it's a lot more accurate than assuming all IE users who haven't changed their settings don't want +1 buttons.

View on HN

And you know for a fact that it's set to that because it's the default and that I haven't reviewed it and decided that I'm ok with how it's set out of the box do you?

I review pretty much every browser setting but change only about 5%. You have no way of telling how the setting ended up with its current value and without that that position is bullshit.

First, don't confuse me with Google. I'm talking about the argument Google's implicitly making here through their actions, which I wish they'd just say out loud so we could have a real and proper discussion about these issues.

Of course Google doesn't know your preferences for a fact. Of course Google has no way of knowing. But based on their behavior, it seems they just don't care.

An intellectually honest Google would argue 'Look, the default behavior of your browser is badly broken, because they've made it impossible to distinguish between the small number of people who care about this third-party cookie stuff and the rest of the world, who doesn't care an iota. You care about it? So sorry, take it up with your browser manufacturer and their goofy choice of defaults.'

They don't have the guts to make this argument with words, of course, but this is exactly the argument they're making with their actions.

To which I'd reply that my browser maker made at worst an honest mistake implementing a bad standard.

Google on the other hand cynically exploited it knowing full well what the intention was and not giving a shit.

I know which one I'm taking it up with and which one I'm not using any more.

But there is no honest debate to be had on this as if they openly stated their model was "fuck your privacy" they'd have a far smaller business as that would simply be unacceptable for most people. A position like that can only work if it's not public (ironically).

> they've made it impossible to distinguish between the small number of people who care about this third-party cookie stuff and the rest of the world

DNT tells a server that a user cares about not being tracked. Google doesn't support it

then how would you actually block third-party cookies as a Safari user?

According to the sentiment here, that's your problem, not Google's!

so safari needs to add a fourth option: really block all third-party cookies, and not make it default

And once Google and Facebook find a workaround for that setting, they can add a fifth option: really really block all third-party cookies.

Seriously, the answer here is that if a browser wants to block third-party cookies by default, it should go all the way and do so, no exceptions. If social networks want to plaster the entire web with their buttons they can try asking browser users to change the setting back.

Do we need another setting for "no, really make my default font Arial"?

A setting is a setting.

The need to justify it like that just screams how wrong it is. They want to exploit users and will do anything to achieve that. The default settings hindered them so they worked around it. Privacy shouldn't be "opt-in". Your statement sounds like a thief justifying his crime by claiming that since Mrs Smith didn't install a $20,000 security system in her house she really didn't care enough about her property and that makes his "business model" of burglary okay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com