6 ms·

Or you could just not collect information you don't need? You don't have to ask consent if you just don't do it, you know. The pop-ups are annoying because the

Or you could just not collect information you don't need? You don't have to ask consent if you just don't do it, you know. The pop-ups are annoying because the website owners want you to just click through. Ever seen one of those where you have to uncheck every single box? Yep, those violate the GDPR. The default setting should be no advertising or other bullshit data, and opt-in if you want it. Which no one ever does. Hence the violations. Get mad at the manipulative ad companies, not the people who for once produced an OK piece of regulation.

renewiltord 7y ago
He's not the guy who is collecting data. He's the guy whose data is being collected. And I agree with him. True choice is not imposing this cost on everyone. Let me set it in my browser. Then I'll consent to practically everything and you can consent to nothing. And since it's set at your user agent you can synchronize that across devices easily. If I never see another damned cookie popup I'd be thrilled.
- meowface 7y ago
  The cookie law is just insane to me. GDPR, or at least the parts that are commonly talked about, seems a lot more reasonable: a user should be able to request what data is being collected about them, and should be able to request a full account deletion, including deletion of all data collected from or about them (perhaps minus technical things that are very difficult to purge, like raw web server access logs).
  - renewiltord 7y ago
    > a user should be able to request what data is being collected about them, and should be able to request a full account deletion, including deletion of all data collected from or about them (perhaps minus technical things that are very difficult to purge, like raw web server access logs) I think I'd find it very easy to like this. Honestly, these aspects of GDPR are great. Things I don't like: * Not allowed to do "no service without data" * Consent must be opt-in Bloody exasperating as a user. At least if they'd set it in my user agent. But the browser guys just sit there like fools pontificating on third-party cookies instead of innovating for once and placing the opt-in / opt-out in the browser.
    - mcpeepants 7y ago
      Is this not what the DNT (Do Not Track) header was attempting to achieve before it was essentially abandoned (after being implemented in all major browsers)? Genuinely curious what sort of user agent approach you're looking for.
      - renewiltord 7y ago
        Actually, I've changed my mind. I think people fall into either the advertiser+publisher camp who don't want this in the browser chrome because it will make it too easy to full opt-out and the browser guys don't want it there because they actually just want the advertisers to die out. What I'm asking for is not a stable equilibrium in any way so it's a pointless thought experiment.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      How is the first exasperating you as a user?
      - renewiltord 7y ago
        Pretty sure I'd get an option of "free X more articles if you give us your data to sell". Not getting that is annoying because I was fine with giving away my data for articles.
- Nextgrid 7y ago
  The problem is that imposing the unsafe choice (aka tracking being on by default) puts people who'd rather opt out at risk (because their data is being leaked), while the current situation merely puts an annoyance to people who are happy to opt-in. As far as the cookie popups go the majority of them are not actually GDPR compliant. Tracking should be off by default and consent should be freely given, which means it should be just as easy to opt-in as it is to opt-out. If it's more difficult to say no than yes then the consent is invalid and they might as well just do away with the prompt completely since they're breaking the regulation either way.
jimmaswell 7y ago
How do you expect the web to be funded without this advertiser data? People won't pay for every single website.
- adambyrtek 7y ago
  Interesting question, since the web used to exist and work just fine before online advertising. I'm not saying that we should go back in time, but claiming that ads are a requirement for the web to exist is a slight overstatement.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    > Interesting question, since the web used to exist and work just fine before online advertising. For what definition of "work"? There were static informational pages and....not much else. Content that requires upkeep requires revenue requires either ads or access fees, usually.
- mkolodny 7y ago
  The same way businesses have always been funded - by selling things people think are worth buying.
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    Reddit for example has nothing to sell me directly unless it was subscription-based which is a nonstarter. There's no other model for sites like that besides maybe browser-based crypto mining.
    - meowface 7y ago
      I wouldn't be surprised if a high percentage of reddit users use something like uBlock. I think universal ad blockers are going to slowly become more ubiquitous over time, too. People have been trying to find ways to skip TV commercials for decades. It's going to be the same with ads. When it comes to our own personal devices, advertisers can't really win in the end. They're going to have to stick to things like billboards and other things put up in cities, but even those are being protested and banned in many places. In theory, what about reddit can't be decentralized? All it stores is text and URLs to other content. There isn't all that much actual processing or computation going on, as far as I know, besides some rank calculation stuff. Am I wrong about this? In that case, it comes down to figuring out how to pay the developers and some kind of election process for admins. But with a site with hundreds of millions of monthly active users, surely they'd be able to figure something out. Like each user who donates $10 or more gets a little perk. And even without decentralization, micropayments and premium perks are already a much more promising model. Lots of people are buying reddit's silver/gold/platinum/a bunch of others awards. Tinder is free by default and manages to make loads of money without showing any ads. I don't think ads are going to be a sustainable model in 10, 20, 50 years from now. I think service providers are just going to have to figure out ways to provide value to users in exchange for money, like most "meatspace" companies do.

renewiltord 7y ago

He's not the guy who is collecting data. He's the guy whose data is being collected. And I agree with him. True choice is not imposing this cost on everyone. Let me set it in my browser. Then I'll consent to practically everything and you can consent to nothing. And since it's set at your user agent you can synchronize that across devices easily. If I never see another damned cookie popup I'd be thrilled.

meowface 7y ago
The cookie law is just insane to me. GDPR, or at least the parts that are commonly talked about, seems a lot more reasonable: a user should be able to request what data is being collected about them, and should be able to request a full account deletion, including deletion of all data collected from or about them (perhaps minus technical things that are very difficult to purge, like raw web server access logs).
- renewiltord 7y ago
  > a user should be able to request what data is being collected about them, and should be able to request a full account deletion, including deletion of all data collected from or about them (perhaps minus technical things that are very difficult to purge, like raw web server access logs) I think I'd find it very easy to like this. Honestly, these aspects of GDPR are great. Things I don't like: * Not allowed to do "no service without data" * Consent must be opt-in Bloody exasperating as a user. At least if they'd set it in my user agent. But the browser guys just sit there like fools pontificating on third-party cookies instead of innovating for once and placing the opt-in / opt-out in the browser.
  - mcpeepants 7y ago
    Is this not what the DNT (Do Not Track) header was attempting to achieve before it was essentially abandoned (after being implemented in all major browsers)? Genuinely curious what sort of user agent approach you're looking for.
    - renewiltord 7y ago
      Actually, I've changed my mind. I think people fall into either the advertiser+publisher camp who don't want this in the browser chrome because it will make it too easy to full opt-out and the browser guys don't want it there because they actually just want the advertisers to die out. What I'm asking for is not a stable equilibrium in any way so it's a pointless thought experiment.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    How is the first exasperating you as a user?
    - renewiltord 7y ago
      Pretty sure I'd get an option of "free X more articles if you give us your data to sell". Not getting that is annoying because I was fine with giving away my data for articles.
Nextgrid 7y ago
The problem is that imposing the unsafe choice (aka tracking being on by default) puts people who'd rather opt out at risk (because their data is being leaked), while the current situation merely puts an annoyance to people who are happy to opt-in. As far as the cookie popups go the majority of them are not actually GDPR compliant. Tracking should be off by default and consent should be freely given, which means it should be just as easy to opt-in as it is to opt-out. If it's more difficult to say no than yes then the consent is invalid and they might as well just do away with the prompt completely since they're breaking the regulation either way.

jimmaswell 7y ago

How do you expect the web to be funded without this advertiser data? People won't pay for every single website.

adambyrtek 7y ago
Interesting question, since the web used to exist and work just fine before online advertising. I'm not saying that we should go back in time, but claiming that ads are a requirement for the web to exist is a slight overstatement.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  > Interesting question, since the web used to exist and work just fine before online advertising. For what definition of "work"? There were static informational pages and....not much else. Content that requires upkeep requires revenue requires either ads or access fees, usually.
mkolodny 7y ago
The same way businesses have always been funded - by selling things people think are worth buying.
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  Reddit for example has nothing to sell me directly unless it was subscription-based which is a nonstarter. There's no other model for sites like that besides maybe browser-based crypto mining.
  - meowface 7y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if a high percentage of reddit users use something like uBlock. I think universal ad blockers are going to slowly become more ubiquitous over time, too. People have been trying to find ways to skip TV commercials for decades. It's going to be the same with ads. When it comes to our own personal devices, advertisers can't really win in the end. They're going to have to stick to things like billboards and other things put up in cities, but even those are being protested and banned in many places. In theory, what about reddit can't be decentralized? All it stores is text and URLs to other content. There isn't all that much actual processing or computation going on, as far as I know, besides some rank calculation stuff. Am I wrong about this? In that case, it comes down to figuring out how to pay the developers and some kind of election process for admins. But with a site with hundreds of millions of monthly active users, surely they'd be able to figure something out. Like each user who donates $10 or more gets a little perk. And even without decentralization, micropayments and premium perks are already a much more promising model. Lots of people are buying reddit's silver/gold/platinum/a bunch of others awards. Tinder is free by default and manages to make loads of money without showing any ads. I don't think ads are going to be a sustainable model in 10, 20, 50 years from now. I think service providers are just going to have to figure out ways to provide value to users in exchange for money, like most "meatspace" companies do.