6 ms·

I noticed Twitch is doing the same thing, if you "manage your choices" you get the banner to "manage your choices" on every page load, the only way to get rid o

I noticed Twitch is doing the same thing, if you "manage your choices" you get the banner to "manage your choices" on every page load, the only way to get rid of the banner was to "accept" which accepts everything. (I hope it was just a 'bug' but it didn't feel like it.) I don't get it though, if companies are so scared of being fined 4% of revenue that they put up these banners, aren't they inviting the worse end of the punishment scale by trying to weasel around the law rather than just ignoring it completely?

ckastner 8y ago
The worst offender I've encountered is imgur.com, where "click here to manage your privacy settings" brings you to a page with literally hundreds of advertisers. About half are on "allowed" by default. If you want to disallow, you have to select each entry individually. The other half only specify "requires opt-out", apparently imgur expects you to contact some third party to do so. How on earth they expect to weasel around the law with this ham-fisted approach is beyond me.
- okanesen 8y ago
  Same goes with Tumblr and Yahoo for example, where everything is enabled by default and you have to go one (I'm not talking about 10-20, it's more like +300) by one to enable the tracking done by advertising/marketing companies. One of the better thing is, though I don't want to advocate the behavior of auto opt-in at all, that most of these sites are at least using something like TRUSTe or Oath, where you only have to disable hundreds of marketing services once and are done with all the sites, which are using the same service for cookie consent. It's against the law to make the options opt-out but these companies are still trying hard to don't obey by the law, it's really comical.
- fauigerzigerk 8y ago
  >How on earth they expect to weasel around the law with this ham-fisted approach is beyond me. They reckon, perhaps correctly, that almost all websites weasel around the law and only very few of them will ever be fined. Privacy activists will go after the big fish first and there will be time for the small sites to correct course once it becomes clear what is and isn't permitted.
  - malka 8y ago
    imgur is a big fish though. due to this assholeness, i null routed them at router level in my house, and at my work. fuck imgur.
- dspillett 8y ago
  > imgur.com I would absolutely not expect good behaviour from them with respect to advertising, including but not limited to tracking. That site was the final bail of hay that had me install ad blocking measures at the network level. Too often their advertising partners would attempt pop-ups, drive-by installs, gaining access to microphones, and other arse-hole-ery. For myself I can just stop going there, but there are others in the household that wouldn't have done and I didn't want the job of cleaning their machines is something did get in. Of course my other option is add imgur.com itself to a malicious sites list so it'll be blocked completely at the network level...

ckastner 8y ago

The worst offender I've encountered is imgur.com, where "click here to manage your privacy settings" brings you to a page with literally hundreds of advertisers. About half are on "allowed" by default. If you want to disallow, you have to select each entry individually. The other half only specify "requires opt-out", apparently imgur expects you to contact some third party to do so. How on earth they expect to weasel around the law with this ham-fisted approach is beyond me.

okanesen 8y ago
Same goes with Tumblr and Yahoo for example, where everything is enabled by default and you have to go one (I'm not talking about 10-20, it's more like +300) by one to enable the tracking done by advertising/marketing companies. One of the better thing is, though I don't want to advocate the behavior of auto opt-in at all, that most of these sites are at least using something like TRUSTe or Oath, where you only have to disable hundreds of marketing services once and are done with all the sites, which are using the same service for cookie consent. It's against the law to make the options opt-out but these companies are still trying hard to don't obey by the law, it's really comical.
fauigerzigerk 8y ago
>How on earth they expect to weasel around the law with this ham-fisted approach is beyond me. They reckon, perhaps correctly, that almost all websites weasel around the law and only very few of them will ever be fined. Privacy activists will go after the big fish first and there will be time for the small sites to correct course once it becomes clear what is and isn't permitted.
- malka 8y ago
  imgur is a big fish though. due to this assholeness, i null routed them at router level in my house, and at my work. fuck imgur.
dspillett 8y ago
> imgur.com I would absolutely not expect good behaviour from them with respect to advertising, including but not limited to tracking. That site was the final bail of hay that had me install ad blocking measures at the network level. Too often their advertising partners would attempt pop-ups, drive-by installs, gaining access to microphones, and other arse-hole-ery. For myself I can just stop going there, but there are others in the household that wouldn't have done and I didn't want the job of cleaning their machines is something did get in. Of course my other option is add imgur.com itself to a malicious sites list so it'll be blocked completely at the network level...