Hacker News Reader

Comment by agilob | Hacker News Reader

Does it set a precedent that I can send a header "do-not-show-ads" and they can't send me ads?

There is no right not to be shown ads. Also you would need your header to be specified in some standard (informal or otherwise).

I've been having the same thoughts. Pragmatically, the main roadblock is that the DNSA flag would need to go through some legitimate standardization process.

It would be really fun* if the headers of an HTTP request were to be considered part of a legally binding agreement between client and server.

*In a "mentally deranged fun" sense, of course.

Tracking is considered a negative action, so there are stronger protections around that.

It's not a crime to put an advertising truck outside a house, but it can be to put a (private company) surveillance truck.

No, ads are okay in terms of GDPR. The tracking requires consent.

Ads are highly regulated in the EU and individually in member countries. Eg. in Poland it's illegal to show ads using TV shows for children, the ads before and after a show have to be child safe, eg. no medications. Yet same rules don't apply to YouTube or Facebook. Why wouldn't I indicate using a header that this device is used by a child and ads must be appropriate?

Standardizing a "child-safe-content-only" flag would be definitely appropriate.

I remember that this was trying to be a thing in the mid-2000s (via COPPA) in order to help better age restrict adult content. Sites would use metadata to signal the apropriate age limit for their content and web filters could use this to deny access. I don't think that ever went anywhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com