4 ms·

>So websites are supposed to just absorb the cost? That seems like a ridiculous stance. The €0.00002 it took to serve that one page just because the user doesn

>So websites are supposed to just absorb the cost? That seems like a ridiculous stance. The €0.00002 it took to serve that one page just because the user doesn't want to consent to cookie placement/tracking? Is it really that harmful? NPR seems to do this just fine for GDPR reasons: Decline and Visit Plain Text Site

laumars 8y ago
In fairness it can add up pretty quickly on popular sites. I do love NPRs approach though.
- renholder 8y ago
  >In fairness it can add up pretty quickly on popular sites. Aye, if they're only looking at it from a "cookie placement/tracking or nothing" hard-limit perspective, which is what the OC posited it as. ...but if other sites can absorb the costs, case in point: NPR, why is it such a dastardly evil thing to point out? Is there some foolhearted belief that if we cut tracking, tomorrow, the internet would cease to function? Is there absolutely no room for advertisements without cookies/pixels in the modern world...? Do we really believe that it's that expensive to serve webpages?
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    of course it's not expensive to serve pages. but creating content and services that are worth serving can be pretty expensive.
cortesoft 8y ago
The cost to serve the page is a misleading number to use. You also have to factor in the cost to create the content, manage the service, etc. I mean, by your argument, all digital goods should be free, since it never costs much to transmit the bits.
- renholder 8y ago
  My argument was one user who requested one page and didn't want to consent to cookies/tracking in order to offset the ridiculously low cost of serving the actual page (I'm considering the cost to make it as having already been burdened, as it's already being served). The OC didn't consider the fact that you can have advertising without cookies/tracking/fingerprinting and just reduced it to absrudism by saying that the company would bear the brunt of the cost but even the cost of that single event is marginally insignificant, overall. So, no, my argument was never about all digital goods being free. However, if we want to play the devil's advocate and utilise your reduction to absurdism: By your argument, shouldn't all digital goods be paid for...? For example, Ubuntu costs money to host and serve, yeah?

laumars 8y ago

In fairness it can add up pretty quickly on popular sites. I do love NPRs approach though.

renholder 8y ago
>In fairness it can add up pretty quickly on popular sites. Aye, if they're only looking at it from a "cookie placement/tracking or nothing" hard-limit perspective, which is what the OC posited it as. ...but if other sites can absorb the costs, case in point: NPR, why is it such a dastardly evil thing to point out? Is there some foolhearted belief that if we cut tracking, tomorrow, the internet would cease to function? Is there absolutely no room for advertisements without cookies/pixels in the modern world...? Do we really believe that it's that expensive to serve webpages?
- leetcrew 8y ago
  of course it's not expensive to serve pages. but creating content and services that are worth serving can be pretty expensive.

cortesoft 8y ago

The cost to serve the page is a misleading number to use. You also have to factor in the cost to create the content, manage the service, etc. I mean, by your argument, all digital goods should be free, since it never costs much to transmit the bits.

renholder 8y ago
My argument was one user who requested one page and didn't want to consent to cookies/tracking in order to offset the ridiculously low cost of serving the actual page (I'm considering the cost to make it as having already been burdened, as it's already being served). The OC didn't consider the fact that you can have advertising without cookies/tracking/fingerprinting and just reduced it to absrudism by saying that the company would bear the brunt of the cost but even the cost of that single event is marginally insignificant, overall. So, no, my argument was never about all digital goods being free. However, if we want to play the devil's advocate and utilise your reduction to absurdism: By your argument, shouldn't all digital goods be paid for...? For example, Ubuntu costs money to host and serve, yeah?