@BRIAN_____ advertising to an audience who is not listening though.
@BrendanEich @jeremiahg They actually improved people's privacy a little bit. The business model could be improved to align with our values.
-
-
@BRIAN_____@jeremiahg AAP is a self-defeating shake-down. The curator has major principal/agent conflict. As list grows, little is blocked. -
@BRIAN_____@jeremiahg 1/To improve privacy a lot, block everything. Then problem becomes user cohort free-rides on others, hurts pubs. But -
@BRIAN_____@jeremiahg 2/If we're talking opt-in, the block-everything cohort wasn't gonna click on ads anyway. No loss to pubs. That leaves -
@BRIAN_____@jeremiahg 3/everyone who doesn't opt in, whose privacy and user experience still suck. AKA the web of late 2015 for most users. -
@BRIAN_____@jeremiahg Part of DNT game-plan at Moz, never realized, was to hope opt-in topped out around 20%, those who don't click ads. -
@BrendanEich@jeremiahg My point is, even though there was lots of doubt about DNT, it was so risk- & effort- free it become a "why not?" -
@BRIAN_____@jeremiahg Agreed. Too much "Dr. Feelgood" which led down regulatory rathole and got gamed by IE presetting DNT:1. (So go to 2!) - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.