Kind of amusing reading this article on page that ublock origin reported as loading 38 trackers. Wonder what trackers the washingtonpost ios app itself uses.
This comes up regularly in privacy discussions linking to articles in mainstream online publications.
The editors and the writers of the articles are completely divorced from the decisions driving the technology and profitability of the publisher.
It may be possible for writers to only publish articles in outlets which respect privacy at the expense of popularity but we're probably not hearing about those.
Fair, but as long as nothing changes, let us not stop pointing out the irony merely because things remain crooked. The buck has to stop somewhere, and at the end of the day wapo is profiting from tracking on an article bemoaning tracking. They're free to do so, and being hypocrites doesn't make them wrong, but being not wrong also doesn't make them infallible.
And if someone finally founds a privacy respecting publisher, what better place for them to advertise than a comment lamenting a competitor's failing? Let's keep that door open :)
I’m wondering if a writer could get away with pointing this irony in their article. Could be a powerful gesture acknowledging the status quo and their own position.
I don't really blame an author for publishing in an environment they don't control.
But the reason this comes up so often is because online news sites are not being included in the conversation. We're seeing a lot of articles being written about Facebook and Google, and very few articles written about general tracking techniques that exist outside of those companies that are universal to most news organizations.
And that is something a reporter can choose to talk about or inform themselves about if they want to.
To draw attention to an organization that's at least trying to do better, the NYT's recent privacy project has released at least one article (out of many, but baby steps) talking about its own data collection policies[0]. Also highly to the NYT's credit, they have an article up recommending UBlock Origin as a way to reclaim some privacy control[1]. That's a bold move that takes some character, because adblocking actually affects the NYT -- whether or not you leave Facebook doesn't. The NYT hasn't gotten rid of its trackers, but it's not ignoring the fact that they exist.
What people are noticing and complaining about is that this type of self-awareness is abnormal, even though most tech writers could be pursing some of these topics or writing about them if they chose to. If you're a reporter and you want to talk about privacy, I think it's a question of basic due diligence to try and get a handle on the entire scope of the problem and to write articles that reflect that entire scope. Of course you can't control what your employer does -- but you shouldn't ignore it.
To me it's not a question of hypocrisy, it's a question of accurately informing people that the problem is a lot bigger than what we're currently talking about, and that addressing privacy problems is going to take more work than just splitting up Facebook -- it's going to require restructuring the entire ad industry, and possibly rethinking how we pay for web content in general. That's a really important conversation we should be having right now, and for the most part, we're not having it.
That's not really relevant to the OP's point: the writers and editors don't get to choose what tracking is attached to their story. If they specifically chose to implement tracking in order to receive this demographic information (which I really doubt individual writers get, incidentally) then you might have a point, but as it is, they have no control. So they're not being hypocritical in writing these stories.
However, why isn’t the Washington Post reporting, or at least providing disclosure that they are doing the “bad thing” they are reporting others are doing?
For example, financial writers generally disclose if they have a position in a stock they are discussing.
If a reporter wanted to be completely transparent, they’d write “yes, and even this publication doesn’t respect user privacy.” But of course they won’t do that. Interestingly, trackers for Washington Post via Apple News are non-existent. It’s actually better for privacy to read WaPo via Apple News than on their own app/website. Yet, not a mention of their own pot/kettle blackness. How about privacy using Amazon devices? Or the relatively strong privacy with HomePod vs. Alexa? Since Bezos owns the Washington Post, there is certainly room for skepticism when it comes to WaPo reporting on a space in which their ownership has a vested interest.
To be fair they actually listed themselves as an offender:
>IPhone apps I discovered tracking me by passing information to third parties — just while I was asleep — include Microsoft OneDrive, Intuit’s Mint, Nike, Spotify, The Washington Post and IBM’s the Weather Channel.
>The Post said its trackers were used to make sure ads work.
I think they understand that they are hypocritical in a sense, but the article is more focused around Apple's new privacy campaign, which does feel a bit disingenuous from Apple.
I imagine this is because the journos and editors aren’t fully aware of the marketing department using google tag manager to bloat the site with all kinds of bullshit without engineering oversight. They can shove whatever they they want on the page just by copying and pasting snippets.
Hence why QuantCast or whatever blocks your view with a confirmation banner in the most intrusive way, every time you load up a site in the EU.
If they aren’t aware of the tracking happening on their own stories, how could they possibly be qualified to report on the tracking behaviors of others? They can’t possibly be that naïve.
