I don't think so. It was conceived on the user agent side AFAIK. The publishers decided not to honor it. At that point, there's not much point to keeping it on the UA side.
In no small part because the people who thought of it (the browser makers) had a powerful commercial incentive to ditch it, because they are funded by advertising.
Microsoft enabled Do Not Track by default. Advertisers said they would ignore it for this reason. Most of them never respected it. Apple removed it from Safari years later because it was used for tracking. Mozilla removed it from Firefox years after Safari. Chrome has it even now.
> Advertisers said they would ignore it for this reason
That was the missed opportunity. Had the EU stepped in and said "I'm sorry, the user expressed explicit intent to not be tracked and you're planning to ignore that? How about that's a fine?" it would have survived.
That doesn't track (pun not intended). It's a binary state so either side has to be the default, they just changed which side the default fell on. Prior to the change no opinion expressed and expressed intent (in favour of tracking) still looked the same.
Microsoft made the default be, well, the default preference - what most users would set this setting to if they had to look. That's a good and sensible default.
The only reason why the advertisers were so unhappy about it is because what they do is neither good nor sensible by most people's standards.
I'm sorry but the word is "consent" not "intent" and that's literally how consent works.
If I (a complete stranger to you) walk up to you and kiss you on the lips, it doesn't make a difference whether you're wearing a t-shirt informing everyone you don't want strangers to kiss you on the lips or not - I don't have any basis on which I can presume to have obtained your consent so I'd still be violating your rights.
This is very much a "tech bros don't understand consent" case: if you do something without consent, you better have a damn good reason other than "but it's good for meeee" (or "good for my bottom line"). "My business model depends on it" also isn't a good justification - there are plenty of business models that depend on things that are unquestionably illegal, we just refer to them as "criminal enterprises" rather than "disruptive startups".
DNT headers are equivalent to those email signatures that pretend to be a legal document. You're just spamming the server with extra crap that does nothing and means nothing.
Actually it's worse, DNT headers are like posting a wall of text on facebook saying you do not consent to them using your images or posts for some purpose.
Track doesn't have a consistent definition across contexts, to regulate this you would have to fix it to something - what are your suggestions? DNT and the "deny optional" that foamed its way out of the GDPR aren't quite the same thing, and even if they are, it will take many court cases and years of time to figure that out.
If you have a better write on regulation lets hear it.
DNT headers are not by themselves legally binding. However they can rightfully be considered an indication of a user's preferences (kind like how the OS language settings can be an indication of what language a user wants a website to use).
What most people miss about the GDPR is that most of it (as well as the ePrivacy Directive covering more technical aspects like cookies) really only exists because of the one big thing at its core most people are either not aware of or intentionally omitting:
The GDPR establishes a user's right to ownership and control of their personally identifiable information as an inalienable and irrevocable fundamental human right. This is what makes all the rest of it necessary: it's not about "cookie banners", it's about requiring others to obtain consent for what they want to do with that information; it's not about writing "privacy policies", it's about explaining what you do with that information and how you guarantee their rights are respected by you and disclosing who you're passing it on to and how you're ensuring they too respect those rights.
The alternative to consent dialogs (whether as "pop-ups" or via confirmations when prompting for relevant information) would be requiring every website to have a written contract with each user. Consent is only valid if it is demonstrably informed (and non-coerced but that's a different story) and it must be specific and revocable. You can't have users blanket opt-in to everything you'd like - they wouldn't even know what consent they'd need to withdraw later if they reconsider.
By the way, courts recently seem to have started ruling that the way many AIs work the companies training them are in violation of copyright laws by using intellectual property as training data without permission and in order for contracts to be legally binding, anything given by one party has to be given consideration by the other (i.e. anything of value given by one party has to be balanced out with something of value given by the other party) - so I wouldn't be too quick to ridicule the idea that using Facebook means Facebook can do with your data whatever its terms of service say they can do, even if posting on Facebook can probably not be considered an effective way of informing Meta about your disagreement.
And, they could have been made legally binding. The EU established a precedent of requiring consent for tracking afterwards after the ship had sailed on this technology.
The only thing required to make a signal like that legally binding is the power of law. It just wasn't there for DNT.
> DNT and the "deny optional" that foamed its way out of the GDPR aren't quite the same thing, and even if they are, it will take many court cases and years of time to figure that out.
Or it will take one clear message from the regulators saying they're equivalent.
