3 ms·
Don't complain to publishers. Complain to EU lawmakers who make this cookie acknowledge silliness mandatory.
by ptaipale 8y ago
Don't complain to publishers. Complain to EU lawmakers who make this cookie acknowledge silliness mandatory.
- jraph 8y agoI agree with you. Session cookies do not require consent but settings-related cookies do and this is a bit silly. But it got worse with GDPR (which I think is good, contrary to the previous law), and I don't care about cookies seems to take care of some of this mess. edit: but actually I don't set settings on random web pages, therefore they should not need my consent anyway. My consent could be asked the first time I set a setting, this would not be intrusive. So maybe the cookies law was not that bad either.
- ben_w 8y agoThat’s analogous to saying “don’t complain about the stalkers, complain about the police for requiring stalkers to tell you they’re stalkers”.
- ptaipale 8y agoNot really. We all know that sites give us cookies, it's the standard behaviour in the net, and the constant nagging by all web sites "accept this" and "accept that" and "continue as usual" has led to a situation where each and every site gives a different warning, which we all then blindly accept, because it is way too cumbersome to actually read pages of legalese when you are arriving on a Web page that has some information you googled for. I claim that the cookie-acknowledgement legislation does not add value and is clearly counterproductive. We are taught to accept that "everyone is a stalker" and "it's okay we do it, because you accepted it, didn't you read that legal disclaimer, possibly in a language you do not understand".
- ben_w 8y agoTo my understanding, the legislation requires informed consent not mere assent. So this would be like, what, pretending you’re a fan to get an autograph and then revealing that the celebrity has just signed away all their rights? And then asserting that that’s legally binding?