The Viewthrough Measurement Consortium supports the
IAB's position. The idea of a centralized cookie clearinghouse run by people with anti-business agenda is
suspect. When Mozilla forces users out by default, that smacks of paternalism if
not Bolshevism. The natural quid pro quo between a publisher and their online
audience is being hi-jacked as a result of these
maneuvers. Meanwhile, the biggest threat to privacy is likely the Feds
who have effectively unlimited resources and can use force to compel behavior.
Free people have a choice.
The question for the consumer (as always) is what's
in it for me? Today the choice is free content or free content (no
ads/tracking). Some will choose the latter. Right
now, consumers of ad-supported content really don't know what it costs to
provide it and there is no penalty for blocking ads or cookies. VMC's position
is to let the consumer decide: their choice should be to either pay for the
content or accept ads/tracking...everybody else should get blocked by the
publishers - meaning no or very limited
content/functionality. Users can always opt-back in.
While it is great that browser companies want to
provide consumers with more control, the consumers themselves ought to make
their decision in a way that is also truly informed. Publishers have really got
to wake-up to actively owning this - that day is coming, albeit slowly. For the Bolsheviks, there
really is no free lunch.
Related post from the Tip of the Spear Blog: Solutions to the Privacy Debate: Lemons, Carrots and Potatoes.
