4 ms·

I found most GDPR consent popups and settings cumbersome. They are hidden, they often require a few more extremely slow HTTP requests. I suppose most people sim

by WA 8y ago

I found most GDPR consent popups and settings cumbersome. They are hidden, they often require a few more extremely slow HTTP requests. I suppose most people simply click agree, because it’s the fastest option. I trust my AdBlocker more than any consent options/frameworks.

askmike 8y ago
> I trust my AdBlocker more than any consent options/frameworks. There should be more layers of defense for your privacy. ad blockers only really target third party trackers. While this method also helps for webapps that track you directly (facebook, google, etc).
- sdoering 8y ago
  I trust my hosts file first. For work reasons I need to allow some domains/trackers there by default (Adobe Analytics, Tagmanager, Google Analytics and AB-testimg stuff). There my browser plugins come into play. I can decide on a site by site basis to block or to be able to do my work. I know, I will not be able to block everything. Especially if it is done in the backend. But at least I can kill most 3rd party crap that way.
vertex-four 8y ago
Probably most consent dialogs are illegal, tbh. It just needs to get to court to prove that the GDPR is enforceable.
- pluma 8y ago
  Personally I hope the outcome will be a strict interpretation: * opt-out by default * dismissing means opt-out * users need to be able to dismiss banners (at least per session) Along with a lenient interpretation of consent-by-default for "normal" use (i.e. serving the content, anonymized logging and anonymized analytics) I think this would make the most sense from a user perspective while still serving basic business interests.
cs02rm0 8y ago
I find them worse than cumbersome. Take this from Bloomberg - https://i.imgur.com/A8xSnRA.png https://i.imgur.com/A8xSnRA.png I can't work out if that's set to allow functional and disallow advertising cookies or the other way around. And that's Bloomberg who presumably think they're somewhat reputable. Still, I'm sure there's a UX guy somewhere swimming in material for a talk on dark patterns. Every cloud, but ffs.
cwingrav 8y ago
> I trust my AdBlocker more than any consent options/frameworks. I agree. But, I have nothing against ads, just poorly behaved nuisance ads. I want content providers to get paid, I just don't want to surrender my privacy and eyeballs for that to occur. So, I'm trying to think of some rules for well behaved ads, that I would allow to come through my AdBlocker. 1) privacy - hosted on neutral, log-free and audited website so no tracking information gained and no additional information in the URL query parameters 2) image - ad image is an appropriate size in kb, has no animation and is a strait img tag (i.e. no javascript to do funny things on hover, click or over time). 3) render - image size is included in page html (avoid annoying layout shifts as the page renders) Anything i'm missing? I think this would be an interesting check-box for an AdBlocker app/plugin. Missing: * some way to stop an advertiser from uploading the same image 50k times with a slightly different name to do tracking. could probably be covered easily with the way billing is done so this would be cost prohibitive.
- kgwxd 8y ago
  If sites just hosted their own ads, blockers wouldn't stand a chance. I wouldn't trust a third-party, centralized, site (users should have demanded that their browsers block third-party content from the begining of the web) and it wouldn't stop the host from doing their own on-site tracking. Self hosted ads are the only that will ever be allowed past my blocker, and I've seen about 3 sites in the past 10 years that do it.
  - lugg 8y ago
    Thankfully it's hard to prevent click fraud with self served ads otherwise ad companies would have been all over this.
    - acct1771 8y ago
      Classically, a site could sell their own advertising space and serve them from their own infrastructure. This would be preferred. More careful vetting of advertisers/ads, more targeted without personally identifying info, and less malware being served by ad networks, intentionally or otherwise.

by WA 8y ago

askmike 8y ago

> I trust my AdBlocker more than any consent options/frameworks. There should be more layers of defense for your privacy. ad blockers only really target third party trackers. While this method also helps for webapps that track you directly (facebook, google, etc).

sdoering 8y ago
I trust my hosts file first. For work reasons I need to allow some domains/trackers there by default (Adobe Analytics, Tagmanager, Google Analytics and AB-testimg stuff). There my browser plugins come into play. I can decide on a site by site basis to block or to be able to do my work. I know, I will not be able to block everything. Especially if it is done in the backend. But at least I can kill most 3rd party crap that way.

vertex-four 8y ago

Probably most consent dialogs are illegal, tbh. It just needs to get to court to prove that the GDPR is enforceable.

pluma 8y ago
Personally I hope the outcome will be a strict interpretation: * opt-out by default * dismissing means opt-out * users need to be able to dismiss banners (at least per session) Along with a lenient interpretation of consent-by-default for "normal" use (i.e. serving the content, anonymized logging and anonymized analytics) I think this would make the most sense from a user perspective while still serving basic business interests.

cs02rm0 8y ago

I find them worse than cumbersome. Take this from Bloomberg - https://i.imgur.com/A8xSnRA.png https://i.imgur.com/A8xSnRA.png I can't work out if that's set to allow functional and disallow advertising cookies or the other way around. And that's Bloomberg who presumably think they're somewhat reputable. Still, I'm sure there's a UX guy somewhere swimming in material for a talk on dark patterns. Every cloud, but ffs.

cwingrav 8y ago

> I trust my AdBlocker more than any consent options/frameworks. I agree. But, I have nothing against ads, just poorly behaved nuisance ads. I want content providers to get paid, I just don't want to surrender my privacy and eyeballs for that to occur. So, I'm trying to think of some rules for well behaved ads, that I would allow to come through my AdBlocker. 1) privacy - hosted on neutral, log-free and audited website so no tracking information gained and no additional information in the URL query parameters 2) image - ad image is an appropriate size in kb, has no animation and is a strait img tag (i.e. no javascript to do funny things on hover, click or over time). 3) render - image size is included in page html (avoid annoying layout shifts as the page renders) Anything i'm missing? I think this would be an interesting check-box for an AdBlocker app/plugin. Missing: * some way to stop an advertiser from uploading the same image 50k times with a slightly different name to do tracking. could probably be covered easily with the way billing is done so this would be cost prohibitive.

kgwxd 8y ago
If sites just hosted their own ads, blockers wouldn't stand a chance. I wouldn't trust a third-party, centralized, site (users should have demanded that their browsers block third-party content from the begining of the web) and it wouldn't stop the host from doing their own on-site tracking. Self hosted ads are the only that will ever be allowed past my blocker, and I've seen about 3 sites in the past 10 years that do it.
- lugg 8y ago
  Thankfully it's hard to prevent click fraud with self served ads otherwise ad companies would have been all over this.
  - acct1771 8y ago
    Classically, a site could sell their own advertising space and serve them from their own infrastructure. This would be preferred. More careful vetting of advertisers/ads, more targeted without personally identifying info, and less malware being served by ad networks, intentionally or otherwise.