4 ms·
I discussed this recently here on HN [0], the fake spinner is a dark-UI to 'punish' you for opting out. If you just accept the popup disappears immediately. [0
by LeonM 7y ago
I discussed this recently here on HN [0], the fake spinner is a dark-UI to 'punish' you for opting out. If you just accept the popup disappears immediately.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20131381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20131381
- pdpi 7y agoI don't think that's actually true. Rather, it's an architectural thing — because all these ad systems were designed without consent in mind, accepting is a no-op, whereas refusing consent requires an outbound request to set some sort of "do not track" flag somewhere (presumably as a cookie).
- noja 7y agoWhy do you think it's not true?
- pdpi 7y agoStarting from Hanlon's razor, you assume incompetence is likelier than malice. Saving the "do not track" preference as a cookie is the most obvious way to distinguish new visitors with no cookie from users who have opted-out, but this means issuing a request to each and every ad network to store a cookie with them. Indeed, a quick look at Chrome's network tab reveals that they are, indeed, making a bazillion requests that is consistent with that explanation.
- Rooster61 7y agoI apply Hanlon's razor to individuals, not collective entities such as a company or agency. The behavior in recent history of such entities I think warrants the exception to the rule.
- pdpi 7y agoIt’s a heuristic that gives you a good starting point, not some sort of law. As it stands, it’s a starting point that’s easy to back with data suggesting it is indeed the case. If you can point me towards evidence that malice is indeed the case here, I’ll willingly change my mind.
- soulofmischief 7y agoWhat kind of evidence are you looking for? Modern shady advertising practices and dark UI patterns which punish users who care about privacy are publicly known and well-documented. At some point the burden of proof lands on the denier and not the privacy advocate. Hanlan's Razor is not evidence towards anything.
- Rooster61 7y agoI didn't say you were right or wrong here for applying Hanlon's razor. I merely stated that I myself do not use that particular line of thinking when it comes to those entities. I also did not say that it was a case of malice in this case. There is no burden of proof levied on me here, nor was I particularly worried about trying to change your mind.
- tjoff 7y agoIf accepting is a no-op then you are being tracked even before you make your decision - as the page already have been loaded. A brutal violation of course but I absolutely expect that to be the case.
- the_other 7y agoI leave the majority of pages that have these popups now. My (likely vain) hope is that the tracking data will show higher bounce rates, and eventually the publishers will explore better financing models. I’m not holding my breath.
- tjoff 7y agoSame here, I've also realized that I pretty much never feel I've missed anything. Sites that don't respect their users extremely seldom have anything of quality to offer anyway.
- Wowfunhappy 7y agoPerhaps the purpose of the spinner is to delete the data they've already collected? Are you still being "tracked" if all copies of the data are destroyed?
- _underfl0w_ 7y agoThat depends on who is doing the actual tracking/correlation and, assuming it's a third party, how quickly the site hands that data off.
- tjoff 7y agoMaybe, but hardly GDPR compliant. Not that they are aiming for that. God knows what they are attempting.