5 ms·

Although I generally hate regulation, I must say that as a European I see a lot of good that comes with the bad. It's a shame the EU is somewhat forced into thi

Although I generally hate regulation, I must say that as a European I see a lot of good that comes with the bad. It's a shame the EU is somewhat forced into this leadership role, because it would be best to organize regulation of Big Tech on an even more international scale. If we could get more people at the table, we wouldn't have all those stupid cookie warnings and we could have regulation in place that succesfully targetted the root cause (the Ad tech cowboys).

yostrovs 7y ago
I think you're going to get more cookie warnings with more bureaucrats running the internet.
- craigsmansion 7y ago
  The abundance of cookie warnings is a sign of the sorry state of the Web, not of bureaucrats gone wild.
- tannhaeuser 7y ago
  More cookies are a good thing ;) If I'm going to a site with "We value your privacy blah blah" I'm immediately turned off and leave.
- nraynaud 7y ago
  we had a lot of EULA garbage, and support phone calls before the cookie warnings. Private enterprise loves red tape too.
Tomte 7y ago
> we wouldn't have all those stupid cookie warnings Why wouldn't we? Those are the effect of web people not understanding the law. It doesn't matter whether the law is written by a more international alliance, they would still misunderstand it. Another example: in the hey-day of the Web, a German court ruled that you cannot escape liability for slanderous statements on another web site you linked to, just by writing a disclaimer notice on your web site. Because in that case the author had clearly endorsed it in many, many words, and the disclaimer was obviously not meant seriously. From then on you could find the "the court has ruled that I'm responsible for linked content, unless I'm adding this disclaimer" notices everywhere. Including other courts' web pages. Although the ruling was exactly opposite. People just copied and pasted this magic formula that would keep them out of trouble. Or see the recent Instagram hoax, where you had to post some boilerplate text, in order to keep the rights to your content. Well-known celebrities fell for it. People are stupid, they go with the flow, and they will get legal stuff wrong.
- martin_a 7y ago
  Yeah, the legendary "Amtsgericht Hamburg" copypasta. From time to time I still stumble over this piece of text, mostly on very old websites. Reminds me of a better age of the internet, nevertheless. Great username for you, too.
- spiderfarmer 7y ago
  >Why wouldn't we? Because the only reason you're seeing them is that this is solved at the wrong level. The laws should have targetted browsers and adtech companies, not webmasters.
- hanspeter 7y ago
  > Why wouldn't we? Those are the effect of web people not understanding the law. It doesn't matter whether the law is written by a more international alliance, they would still misunderstand it. How is it not the law people not understanding the web? How would you obtain consent from the user to store cookies without a pop-up or an even more disruptive method?
  - purple_ducks 7y ago
    > How is it not the law people not understanding the web? They clearly do and got input from technical people. > “This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service.”
    - hanspeter 7y ago
      Are you talking about 1st party cookies vs 3rd party cookies? Because the web people got that. The web is still polluted with cookie consent popups on 99 % of most used websites because 99 % of most used websites use 3rd party cookies. If the law people understood the web they would not create regulations that forces every user in the continent to click a pop-up on every site they visit.

yostrovs 7y ago

I think you're going to get more cookie warnings with more bureaucrats running the internet.

craigsmansion 7y ago
The abundance of cookie warnings is a sign of the sorry state of the Web, not of bureaucrats gone wild.
tannhaeuser 7y ago
More cookies are a good thing ;) If I'm going to a site with "We value your privacy blah blah" I'm immediately turned off and leave.
nraynaud 7y ago
we had a lot of EULA garbage, and support phone calls before the cookie warnings. Private enterprise loves red tape too.

Tomte 7y ago

> we wouldn't have all those stupid cookie warnings Why wouldn't we? Those are the effect of web people not understanding the law. It doesn't matter whether the law is written by a more international alliance, they would still misunderstand it. Another example: in the hey-day of the Web, a German court ruled that you cannot escape liability for slanderous statements on another web site you linked to, just by writing a disclaimer notice on your web site. Because in that case the author had clearly endorsed it in many, many words, and the disclaimer was obviously not meant seriously. From then on you could find the "the court has ruled that I'm responsible for linked content, unless I'm adding this disclaimer" notices everywhere. Including other courts' web pages. Although the ruling was exactly opposite. People just copied and pasted this magic formula that would keep them out of trouble. Or see the recent Instagram hoax, where you had to post some boilerplate text, in order to keep the rights to your content. Well-known celebrities fell for it. People are stupid, they go with the flow, and they will get legal stuff wrong.

martin_a 7y ago
Yeah, the legendary "Amtsgericht Hamburg" copypasta. From time to time I still stumble over this piece of text, mostly on very old websites. Reminds me of a better age of the internet, nevertheless. Great username for you, too.
spiderfarmer 7y ago
>Why wouldn't we? Because the only reason you're seeing them is that this is solved at the wrong level. The laws should have targetted browsers and adtech companies, not webmasters.
hanspeter 7y ago
> Why wouldn't we? Those are the effect of web people not understanding the law. It doesn't matter whether the law is written by a more international alliance, they would still misunderstand it. How is it not the law people not understanding the web? How would you obtain consent from the user to store cookies without a pop-up or an even more disruptive method?
- purple_ducks 7y ago
  > How is it not the law people not understanding the web? They clearly do and got input from technical people. > “This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service.”
  - hanspeter 7y ago
    Are you talking about 1st party cookies vs 3rd party cookies? Because the web people got that. The web is still polluted with cookie consent popups on 99 % of most used websites because 99 % of most used websites use 3rd party cookies. If the law people understood the web they would not create regulations that forces every user in the continent to click a pop-up on every site they visit.