1. I don't have an account on Facebook. 2. Blocked Facebook domains via /etc/hosts 3. Use ghostery
And despite all of these steps it feels like we are wasting our brightest minds to always be a step ahead in surveilling what the humans of this world are doing to exploit it for targeted advertising.
I am not defending FB, my point is that you do not need an army of geniuses to extend the tracking to everyone.
Someone should invent a http header that lets you signal that you don't want to be tracked. It could be named something like DNT, for do-not-track. People could then set DNT=1 and websites such as Facebook would know not to track you...
- it was on by default. You shouldn't have to 'opt-out' of invasive surveillance.
- it was enforceable and backed by a vigilant regulator and credibly enforced legal deterrents. We're far beyond a 'pinky-promise' being enough.
That's the wrong question to ask. You shouldn't have to tell it not to track you. That shouldn't be able to do it, unless you explicitly tell them "hey you can track me."
Google, Criteo and other have long had a default opt-in policy for their retargeting products, etc.
By not having a fucking Facebook account! it seems to me that's actually the crux of that court decision.
It's more complicated than deciding not to have a Facebook account, though that's a great first step.
There should also be a central place for us to put our emails there so spammers won't spam us?If this seems a horrible idea then your suggestion is exactly the same.
This the most G. K. Chesterton-esque comment I have ever read on this site.
Poe's law may apply, but if you're actually being serious, "Let's build a list tracking all the people who want to avoid tracking" first, probably wouldn't work, and second, is the surveillance equivalent of a "standards problem" [1]
How much "brightness" is required to carry out such a strategy? If millions of users followed step 2 (or blocked Facebook domains through another means), what would happen? How would the "brightest minds" respond?
