Hacker News Reader

Comment by Rudism | Hacker News Reader

I'm not entirely sure the value of the DNT header in the first place, even if Microsoft doesn't end up completely derailing it with this move... The kinds of advertisers who would voluntarily opt out of tracking behaviors in response to user preference probably aren't the kind of company who would do things with that information that you need to worry about. I can appreciate the intent behind it, and any move toward increased user privacy is a move in the right direction, but I don't think that leaving it in the hands of the advertisers is going to be a particularly effective approach. It may even be detrimental in the sense that a naive user would turn that option on and get a false sense of security.

View on HN

Personally I question whether Microsoft's main reason for enabling DNT is to protect their user's privacy.

If Microsoft can look like the good guys while sticking a knife in Google's back, preventing them tracking users and targeting ads, then they might as well go for it.

IE on it's own won't do much damage but other browsers will be under pressure now to also add DNT, after all, they don't want their users to think they're privacy online is safer in IE's hands.

If all browsers slowly make this move Google could be affected quite badly. And that is the logic I think Microsoft is using here.

The problem is that the spec of the DNT header says that the DNT header can only be sent in response to a conscious decision on the users part. By turning this on by default, the only thing MS accomplishes is that DNT will likely never have an effect for IE10 users.

Which could also be exactly what they wanted: Get the good press for enabling the header by default while ensuring that they and everybody else will be able to track IE10 users normally, regardless of the setting being enabled or not.

Of course, the spec was only changed after Microsoft announced it would be turned on by default.

Maybe but I hope Google would take the higher moral ground and assume the user has consciously decided to enable it as they have no way to tell otherwise.

It would look a little bad if Google just straight up ignored the DNT header on IE10.

This would singlehandedly kill 10-20% of Google's profits. Microsoft is playing a smart game, now that they have accepted that they cant beat Google in search/web-ads.

Right, because following Microsoft's defaults always leads to the high moral ground...

Please, Microsoft is doing this for the same reason its pouring billions in competing with Bing - so it can strangle their competitors revenue streams.

I wouldn't be too concerned about Google's profits personally. Look at how they got around iOS Safari's blocking of third party cookies(and are paying a fine for it). They'll find some way to do it. Also, DNT does not apply when the user is logged in.

I don't know who at MS thinks this is a smart idea. If DNT gains widespread use, it will pretty much hand the entire US display ad market over to Google.

In terms of revenue per impression, revenue/behavioral tends to beat out contextual. After contextual you've got site targeting and run of network, in that order. Google is the only one that does a really good job on contextual, that I've seen.

As of last month IE market share is now down to 16.4% (w3schools.) What IE does won't be so important because soon no one will be using it anyways.

The value is in changing social perception of the issue.

It's a lot easier to pass legislation to make tracking illegal for users who have explicitly opted out, for example, than it is to pass legislation making tracking illegal period.

That is, DNT is a first step with more steps planned, not a complete solution for the tracking problem.

But if Microsoft derails the first step, then the followup steps can't happen, which is somewhat unfortunate.

It obviously doesn't guarantee anything, but it does pretty much eliminate any arguments based on implicit permission.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com