The NYT editorial board calls for federal US privacy legislation mandating opt in as default on data collection practices by tech companies like Facebook
Using an opt-in approach will help curb the excesses of Big Tech. — The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views …
New York Times
Context & Ripple Effects
The editorial lands in the middle of a long-running fight over who sets the consent default. In 2018, tech companies were lobbying for a federal law that would overrule California's and leave them wide latitude, while an industry group including Apple, Google, and Facebook unveiled a framework proposing opt-ins only for sensitive data — a far weaker baseline than what the board now demands.
Since then the proposals have drifted toward users but stopped short of opt-in as default: a browser-level standard letting people opt out of data sales, and a bipartisan House-Senate bill letting users opt out of targeted ads and sue over improper sales. By calling for opt-in as the starting position, the NYT is staking out the strictest end of the spectrum at the moment lawmakers are drafting text.
First-order effects
Congressional negotiators on the pending privacy bills face direct editorial pressure to move their baseline from opt-out toward opt-in — the difference between Facebook collecting data unless told not to and collecting it only when asked.
Facebook and other ad-funded platforms are named targets, so any opt-in mandate strikes first at their data-collection funnel rather than at subscription or hardware-based competitors.
Second-order effects
Industry lobbying shifts from shaping the law (the 2018 preemption play) to defending the opt-out model against the opt-in framing now entering mainstream editorial opinion, since opt-in defaults threaten targeted-ad inventory across the sector.
Browser-level and registry-based mechanisms — the Global Privacy Standard and the data broker registry in later drafts — become the fallback battleground if full opt-in fails, because they preserve some scale while conceding control.
Third-order effects
If the pattern from opt-out bills through opt-in advocacy holds, US privacy law converges on a consent-first architecture where data collection requires affirmative permission, forcing business models built on passive harvesting to reprice user data.
A federal opt-in regime would also settle the state-versus-federal question the 2018 lobbying campaign raised, replacing a patchwork of rules with one national default that platforms cannot forum-shop.
The trend: US data privacy regulation is ratcheting from industry-shaped opt-out frameworks toward opt-in consent defaults, with editorial and legislative pressure converging after years of stalled drafts.
There is only one right answer to the question of what people should have to do to get the maximum legal privacy protection: Nothing. They should have to do nothing. https://www.nytimes.com/...
Please read this @nytimes editorial calling for a federal law requiring OPT-IN privacy settings instead of today's ubiquitous opt-out settings which are often hidden, complex and make privacy theft the default. This is a simple, clear way to help people protect their privacy. htt…
Facebook reputation is finally dead courtesy of NYT Editorial Board. “The revision has prompted a desperate ad campaign by Facebook, among the most exhaustive data gatherers, which has unconvincingly called it a threat to small businesses.” https://twitter.com/...
1) Once again, a news organization blasts the tech industry (deservedly) for rampant privacy shredding. 2) The news industry is a rampant privacy invader itself. 3) The platforms are advertising competitors. 4) Why are 2) and 3) not mentioned in this commentary? https://twitter.c…
America, Your #Privacy Settings Are All Wrong https://www.nytimes.com/... (Editorial Board of the New York Times in favor of opt-in, federal legislation “urgently needed")
Ironic that, according to Blacklight, this @nytopinion piece on digital privacy has 14 ad trackers and 17 third-party cookies active. https://www.nytimes.com/...
💯agree - opt-out should be assumed default - a business should be required to respect the rights of users & ask for consent to do anything other than serve static assets. Imo opt-out + controller / processor / joint-controller exposure frameworks =🚀⚖️🖖 https://www.nytimes.com/...
Agree with every word in here. The current opt-out regime only serves to prop up the litany of privacy abuses with a veneer of “if people really wanted to they could...”. That's why the biggest abusers push to codify this bankrupt regime into law. https://www.nytimes.com/...
US finally realising what has been legal reality in Europe for over a decade - no tracking unless subject gives informed, specific, freely given consent. https://www.nytimes.com/...
Having an opt-in feature to allow advertisers to track and sell your personal information is where we need to go. Corporations like Microsoft & https://amazon.com/ are actively fighting against this. Projects like @Sentinel_co are the solution 💎 https://ow.ly/...
'Congress has dithered for years without advancing legislation that will address Big Tech's profound power disparity. If lawmakers wait until the next major data breach, it will be too late'> America, Your Privacy Settings Are All Wrong @nytimes ↘️ https://www.nytimes.com/...
Companies should not be allowed to take whatever personal information they want and use it however they want. Americans deserve baseline privacy protections, and I'm committed to working towards federal legislation that puts consumers first. https://www.nytimes.com/...
@MarietjeSchaake @nytimes Yes. But we must do much more than stop big tech firms from abusing the public. We must build something better. https://medium.com/...
“If American consumers want more targeted advertising, or wish to freely share other personal data, they can choose to do so, rather than trust that companies have their best interests in mind” https://www.nytimes.com/...
Finally, the argument is changing from privacy by flipping switches to privacy by default. “Transparency and control” has been the tracking industry's mantra. But we need to protect the people who aren't experts and who don't spend their time in settings. https://www.nytimes.com/…