4 ms·

This is asinine. If you don't like websites including resources from a 3rd party you can block third-party connections, install a blocking extension. We don't n

This is asinine. If you don't like websites including resources from a 3rd party you can block third-party connections, install a blocking extension. We don't need an authoritarian government to make these decisions for us. Mark my words. This is going to have enumerable unintended consequences and the Internet will suffer for it. Fuck the EU.

oblio 7y ago
> We don't need an authoritarian government to make these decisions for us. Yeah man, just like people self-regulated to only drive at safe speeds, always wear seat belts, not hand over money to scammers. Pray tell, how is the EU authoritarian? You do know that every EU government members is elected, either directly or indirectly, by the EU citizens, right?
macinjosh 7y ago
@oblio I self regulate on all those things. I don't need some bureaucrat in an ivory tower to do it for me at the threat of punishment (fines and/or cages) for not doing it. You're just a common bootlicker.
- Slartie 7y ago
  Is it also sufficient to you if the other guy that's crashing into your car's rear end at insane speeds promises to "self-regulate" his top speed next time?
  - macinjosh 7y ago
    If some guy is stupid enough to make that mistake do you think a law is going to stop him?
    - Slartie 7y ago
      I would guess the existing law on speed limits effectively stops thousands of these guys. It's however hard to prove this without an alternate reality in which there are no speed limits whatsoever.
zzo38computer 7y ago
I agree; if you do not want cookies then you can just disable it in the client, and if you do not want it to load third-party scripts or images, then you should disable that, and so on; the cookie warnings and all of that stuff is not helpful. (Perhaps a better requirement would be to require the browser distributors to include warning labels about such features if they are done automatically.)
- llukas 7y ago
  I don't see the reason why tracking and data collection should be opt-out. If you do not like the idea that you own your data, not companies then you can give your consent to process data to everybody.
  - zzo38computer 7y ago
    That is not quite what I meant. What I meant is independent of opt-in or opt-out, but is rather saying that such features in the browser should be and must be configurable, and that is separate from the issue of consent. (Maybe they should be disable third party cookies by default, or whatever, but it will work either way.) What they will do with the data you give to them, is a separate issue than the web browser. The company you are dealing with still needs to have a proper policy for that, but that is different than the issue of the client configuration. Requiring a warning message about cookies on the web page is not helpful, because that is the wrong place to put it; the browser can provide its own such warning, and the user can configure it. (Lynx provides the possibility to ask when a cookie is received.) So, the actual problem is the browser providers designing them stupid, and making them such complicated that it is difficult to make up a new one which is actually good.

oblio 7y ago

> We don't need an authoritarian government to make these decisions for us. Yeah man, just like people self-regulated to only drive at safe speeds, always wear seat belts, not hand over money to scammers. Pray tell, how is the EU authoritarian? You do know that every EU government members is elected, either directly or indirectly, by the EU citizens, right?

macinjosh 7y ago

@oblio I self regulate on all those things. I don't need some bureaucrat in an ivory tower to do it for me at the threat of punishment (fines and/or cages) for not doing it. You're just a common bootlicker.

Slartie 7y ago
Is it also sufficient to you if the other guy that's crashing into your car's rear end at insane speeds promises to "self-regulate" his top speed next time?
- macinjosh 7y ago
  If some guy is stupid enough to make that mistake do you think a law is going to stop him?
  - Slartie 7y ago
    I would guess the existing law on speed limits effectively stops thousands of these guys. It's however hard to prove this without an alternate reality in which there are no speed limits whatsoever.

zzo38computer 7y ago

I agree; if you do not want cookies then you can just disable it in the client, and if you do not want it to load third-party scripts or images, then you should disable that, and so on; the cookie warnings and all of that stuff is not helpful. (Perhaps a better requirement would be to require the browser distributors to include warning labels about such features if they are done automatically.)

llukas 7y ago
I don't see the reason why tracking and data collection should be opt-out. If you do not like the idea that you own your data, not companies then you can give your consent to process data to everybody.
- zzo38computer 7y ago
  That is not quite what I meant. What I meant is independent of opt-in or opt-out, but is rather saying that such features in the browser should be and must be configurable, and that is separate from the issue of consent. (Maybe they should be disable third party cookies by default, or whatever, but it will work either way.) What they will do with the data you give to them, is a separate issue than the web browser. The company you are dealing with still needs to have a proper policy for that, but that is different than the issue of the client configuration. Requiring a warning message about cookies on the web page is not helpful, because that is the wrong place to put it; the browser can provide its own such warning, and the user can configure it. (Lynx provides the possibility to ask when a cookie is received.) So, the actual problem is the browser providers designing them stupid, and making them such complicated that it is difficult to make up a new one which is actually good.