Democrats Propose 'Internet Bill of Rights' to Entice Voters Sick of Facebooks | Hacker News Reader

Democrats Propose 'Internet Bill of Rights' to Entice Voters Sick of Facebooks

gizmodo.com

33 pointsourmandave19 comments

"Drop" is now the most difficult verb to interpret for me. My guess is for Gen X and up it tends to mean "abandon" and for millennials down it means something like "release" or "provide". Did the Democrats give up on the Internet Bill of Rights, or did they propose it?

("Go sideways" is my runner-up for this title. On the East Coast it mostly means "remain unchanged" and on the West Coast it mostly means "shit got crazy".)

I'm a millennial and drop means abandon to me except in the context of music.

Millennial here too and I agree. I want to add that "drop" is used only for music I don't listen to and that I never use the word drop to mean release in any context.

Ok, we've replaced 'drop' with something less ambiguous in the title above.

I’m a millennial (1994) and my first conclusion was that they were abandoning this legislation to entice voters, which makes no sense.

I’m really not a fan of my generation’s elastic relationship with language.

Agreed and confirmed. I’m a GenXer, and my instant interpretation of this headline (before I read your comment) was the abandonment of the bill by the Democrats.

Good.

It's obviously a terrible choice by the journalist. Why spend time researching and writing an article, only to mess up the headline with an ambiguous meaning?!

I'm sorry it's come to this. I'd really prefer a deregulated Internet. I'm not very knowledgeable about privacy tech, but could this be solved via technical controls? E.g., can't browsers prevent tracking cookies (without breaking other cookie uses, like sessions)?

> E.g., can't browsers prevent tracking cookies (without breaking other cookie uses, like sessions)?

No, because tracking cookies don't necessarily advertise themselves as such. Browser extensions that block tracking cookies are blocking cookies that have been identified by humans to be tracking cookies. It's more reactive than proactive.

Don't tracking cookies work because cookies are forwarded across domains? If so, what would be the consequence of browsers only sending cookies to the domain that 'owns' them in the first place? If there is some reasonable functionality, perhaps these should be regarded as opt-in, for example: "foobar.com is requesting access to cookies from ads.google.com. foobar.com says it uses these cookies to enable feature X. Allow access? <Y/N>".

foobar.com never has access to cookies from google.com. when requests are sent to google.com, cookies are added. when you load google.com, JS can access the google.com cookies.

google analytics: google.com tracking cookie is to identify the user. the js in the page knows the current website and tells google "im here". the dominance of google analytics and adsense means users are tracked wherever they go (because google is always there and recording)

However, the browser can choose not to send any cookies to google.com when making requests to google from mycuteblog.com.

It's known as blocking third-party cookies, a setting in most browsers. It does sometimes break when auth flows use separate domains to hold auth cookies, and other valid use-cases.

I'd like to see how the end result allows use of data for political purposes.

Political organizations pioneered the big data movement. (One of the first big data companies, Acxiom, actually started out as a list-seller for political purposes.)

I somehow doubt that this legislation is going to hinder this usage.

For those who find the title confusing, "drop" in this case means "reveal" or "announce"

Lets see how many Democrats actually sign onto Ro Khanna's bill. I bet it won't be many unfortunately.

Let's see him actually introduce a bill first. (Nothing related shows up in Congress.gov).

When media talk about "a bill", if they don't state a bill number, don't believe that it actually exists.

That was clearly stated in the article I read.

>Laid out in a New York Times column Friday, Rep. Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, has proposed a series of 10 principals that, should his party reclaim control of the House of Representatives, he hopes to pass next year in the form of law.

If you're sick of Facebook, get the government to regulate Facebook. Sounds pretty dumb to me.

How about, if you're sick of Facebook, don't use Facebook?

Facebook is powerful enough to harm non-users. See: Russian meddling in 2016 elections.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com