If we do standardize this, why would an ad company stop using their existing tracking? This proposal allows them to collect more data about users, not less. It's just more entropy available to them, like the DNT header.

And I still don't think it's the browser's responsibility to help the ad company. This kind of stuff just doesn't belong in a markup standard. If ad company cannot exist with the way they currently track users due to GDPR or other regulations, and "need" some standard way for "privacy preserving tracking" - they can write their own browser that does it and give people incentives to use it.

This proposal collects far, far less data about about a user than any existing method. It doesn't add more entropy because any ad-tracking platform can (and does) already track this exact information.

By making it a standard that actually solves the needs of advertisers, the willingness to adopt it will increase because it's simpler.

That said, I think this proposal falls short of solving current tracking problems.

Safari is already trying to stop the existing tracking. This proposal allows Apple to say "look, we're giving you the actual functionality you need" and the advertisers completely lose any legitimacy whatsoever to their complaints, as all they're left with is asking for a way to violate user privacy.

>why would an ad company stop using their existing tracking?

This can be addressed in law, but technical alternatives should exist. The alternative existing will also make it easier to pass it in law.

Except we can actually win the war on advertising if we chose to do so. Making large swathes of the back-room tactics advertisers rely on illegal is absolutely do-able and provides more value to all of us - any companies that contract with bad actors can be punished and we could move into an age where we just forget what popups even were.

What we need is a new paradigm for making money on the Internet. Advertisements are psychological tricks users are forced to experience, designed to make that person think they need to spend their money on something they didn't need before they saw the ad.

It's infected our news media, with ads masquerading as real news articles and news providers dripping with desperation to keep you frightened of the BREAKING IMPORTANT NEWS you MUST KNOW ABOUT right after this attempt to sell you razor blades.

It's infected our social media, where avatars that bear only the slightest of photoshopped similarity to the person they claim to be pretend to live a high-life, hiding their broke reality while trying to sell you herbal detox teas produced by failing corporations.

It's infected our telephone system, spammers trying to sell you a new rate on your student loan debt calling you 100 times more often than your own mother.

It's infected our email system, where no client without robust spam filtering is even usable, and you will delete 100 times more emails you never wanted to get than you will receive from your best friend.

Text messages. The postal system. Light polluting billboards on highways. You name it, if advertising has gotten its claws in it, it has either ruined or is ruining it.

Selling ads and selling users' PII are the two primary methods by which a website makes money. Both need to die.

... I would argue that the standard by effect makes it far too easy to simply lock out attribution by normalizing the way that attribution works. It effectively makes it one super easy target for ad blockers and obfu plugins.

Billions of dollars are at stake for companies that need to understand how their ads are working across ecosystems and to realize the value (or lack thereof) for media buys. Many of the sites that place media also are doing so to offset the costs for users.

There are few ways to toss a grenade in this complex room that does not harm all parties and force each to defend their own needs/wants.