4 ms·

> The critical question for both businesses is whether users will click “yes”, when asked to consent. Yes, users will click yes on basically anything. Faceboo

> The critical question for both businesses is whether users will click “yes”, when asked to consent. Yes, users will click yes on basically anything. Facebook could put up a message that says "In order to proceed, click yes to give us half the money in your checking account" and the majority of Facebook users will still click through. Look at EU cookie warnings. Did any of those warnings noticeably impact anybody's traffic after the first week?

mattmanser 9y ago
Cookie warnings is a bad example as it was widely acknowledged by anyone vaguely techy that they'd got it completely wrong from the start.
- ben_jones 9y ago
  Eh, couldn't you make the argument that the Cookie warnings showed that a government body could meaningfully change the experience of the internet? As small as the warnings are, had anything like it been done before?
  - foota 9y ago
    Sure, now we get annoying warnings on every website we visit....
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Because the UK intentionally built a loophole into their version of the law. The actual original cookie law, that was decided on EU level, requires users actually to be able to opt out. But it was a directive, and so countries could interpret it for local implementations. The GDPR is a regulation, which means its text is directly law, and it also means it can be a lot stricter.
      - grabeh 9y ago
        Not so much a loophole but the UK Information Commissioner certainly adopted a more relaxed approach to enforcement of the requirements of the cookie law compared to other countries. And the law required prior informed consent to cookies with opt-out not generally being considered to be valid consent.
      - michalskop 9y ago
        Talking from experience from a "new" EU country with solid IT scene: the "cookie law" is not enforced at all. Google would be probably the only one theoretically enforcing it (most of websites do show a message because they use Google Analytics), but it would go against Google's interest, so they are not really enforcing it either.
  - pg_is_a_butt 9y ago
    couldn't you make the argument that the USA showed that Europe has no real power, and militias could easily usurp their authority? you're all idiots.
- dx034 9y ago
  The difference is that cookie warnings only inform you, they don't offer a choice. The excessive use of personal data is something that most businesses don't need for their core purpose and something that users are certainly worried about (at least in Europe).
Silhouette 9y ago
Yes, users will click yes on basically anything. No, they won't. When the EU imposed new consumer protection rules not so long ago, it resulted in having to put some scary-looking legalese directly on your sales funnel pages if you were supplying digital content, even if said legalese was of no practical value to anyone including your customer. That alone was enough to hurt conversions, even if you didn't require something like a token checkbox to be ticked before continuing. The GDPR compliance requirements are potentially on an entirely different scale.
hohenheim 9y ago
There is a big difference between cookie warning and GDPR. You could not op-out of cookie storage. You either used the service and accepted that they store cookies. Or you closed the tab and left. GDPR prevents the companies from discontinuing service for users whom wish not to be tracked.
laksjd 9y ago
Clicking yes might not even be necessary: I recently went to a laywer-oriented event (IANAL) that discussed the GDPR and it had a cheerful talk about "Alternatives to Consent" The talk listed all the possible ways the law allows you to store/manipulate user data without requiring explicit consent... There are a shocking number and iirc they apply basically whenever you have a direct consumer relationship with some company.
- jsty 9y ago
  IANAL, just currently wading through GDPR material. As I see it the most relevant processing conditions for companies offering a service and storing / processing data without gaining explicit consent are likely to be 6(1)(b) - Processing is necessary for the performance of a contract with the data subject or to take steps to enter into a contract 6(1)(c) - Processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation My understanding is that these are far from a blank cheque to store / manipulate arbitrary personal information. Specifically, the storage and use of data in question must be provably fundamental to either provision of the relevant service in (b), or meeting legal obligations in (c). So yes, a company providing you a service will gain the right to store certain customer details demonstrably necessary to provide that service - say hosting your email. It won't however allow arbitrary use of such data to e.g. provide targeted advertising, since such use is not fundamentally required for performance of the service. This would require a specific opt-in (and from what I recall, a failure to opt-in cannot interfere with the provision of said service - not so clear on this however).
dingo_bat 9y ago
This is not even the fault of users. As a user, I want to get to the webpage I'm opening. I'll do whatever it takes to quickly reach there. I think "what's the worst they could have written". After all I haven't paid them anything. Expecting free users of Facebook to analyze a prompt on screen and legally consent to it is utter stupidity. Most people believe that clicking a checkbox isn't even legally binding. In other words I know that clicking on a Facebook dialog box saying "you agree to give us 50% of your income" is meaningless and so I will click on it and use the website.

mattmanser 9y ago

Cookie warnings is a bad example as it was widely acknowledged by anyone vaguely techy that they'd got it completely wrong from the start.

ben_jones 9y ago
Eh, couldn't you make the argument that the Cookie warnings showed that a government body could meaningfully change the experience of the internet? As small as the warnings are, had anything like it been done before?
- foota 9y ago
  Sure, now we get annoying warnings on every website we visit....
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Because the UK intentionally built a loophole into their version of the law. The actual original cookie law, that was decided on EU level, requires users actually to be able to opt out. But it was a directive, and so countries could interpret it for local implementations. The GDPR is a regulation, which means its text is directly law, and it also means it can be a lot stricter.
    - grabeh 9y ago
      Not so much a loophole but the UK Information Commissioner certainly adopted a more relaxed approach to enforcement of the requirements of the cookie law compared to other countries. And the law required prior informed consent to cookies with opt-out not generally being considered to be valid consent.
    - michalskop 9y ago
      Talking from experience from a "new" EU country with solid IT scene: the "cookie law" is not enforced at all. Google would be probably the only one theoretically enforcing it (most of websites do show a message because they use Google Analytics), but it would go against Google's interest, so they are not really enforcing it either.
- pg_is_a_butt 9y ago
  couldn't you make the argument that the USA showed that Europe has no real power, and militias could easily usurp their authority? you're all idiots.
dx034 9y ago
The difference is that cookie warnings only inform you, they don't offer a choice. The excessive use of personal data is something that most businesses don't need for their core purpose and something that users are certainly worried about (at least in Europe).

Silhouette 9y ago

Yes, users will click yes on basically anything. No, they won't. When the EU imposed new consumer protection rules not so long ago, it resulted in having to put some scary-looking legalese directly on your sales funnel pages if you were supplying digital content, even if said legalese was of no practical value to anyone including your customer. That alone was enough to hurt conversions, even if you didn't require something like a token checkbox to be ticked before continuing. The GDPR compliance requirements are potentially on an entirely different scale.

hohenheim 9y ago

There is a big difference between cookie warning and GDPR. You could not op-out of cookie storage. You either used the service and accepted that they store cookies. Or you closed the tab and left. GDPR prevents the companies from discontinuing service for users whom wish not to be tracked.

laksjd 9y ago

Clicking yes might not even be necessary: I recently went to a laywer-oriented event (IANAL) that discussed the GDPR and it had a cheerful talk about "Alternatives to Consent" The talk listed all the possible ways the law allows you to store/manipulate user data without requiring explicit consent... There are a shocking number and iirc they apply basically whenever you have a direct consumer relationship with some company.

jsty 9y ago
IANAL, just currently wading through GDPR material. As I see it the most relevant processing conditions for companies offering a service and storing / processing data without gaining explicit consent are likely to be 6(1)(b) - Processing is necessary for the performance of a contract with the data subject or to take steps to enter into a contract 6(1)(c) - Processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation My understanding is that these are far from a blank cheque to store / manipulate arbitrary personal information. Specifically, the storage and use of data in question must be provably fundamental to either provision of the relevant service in (b), or meeting legal obligations in (c). So yes, a company providing you a service will gain the right to store certain customer details demonstrably necessary to provide that service - say hosting your email. It won't however allow arbitrary use of such data to e.g. provide targeted advertising, since such use is not fundamentally required for performance of the service. This would require a specific opt-in (and from what I recall, a failure to opt-in cannot interfere with the provision of said service - not so clear on this however).

dingo_bat 9y ago

This is not even the fault of users. As a user, I want to get to the webpage I'm opening. I'll do whatever it takes to quickly reach there. I think "what's the worst they could have written". After all I haven't paid them anything. Expecting free users of Facebook to analyze a prompt on screen and legally consent to it is utter stupidity. Most people believe that clicking a checkbox isn't even legally binding. In other words I know that clicking on a Facebook dialog box saying "you agree to give us 50% of your income" is meaningless and so I will click on it and use the website.