3 ms·

While the cookie initiative has a good intention, I really don't think it's actually useful. Large amounts of the population(willing to bet north of 99%) have a

While the cookie initiative has a good intention, I really don't think it's actually useful. Large amounts of the population(willing to bet north of 99%) have absolutely 0 clue what cookies are in the context of the web or what they imply. Most people just click on "accept", just to get it out of their way. And I do too often enough, granted I know the site I'm on. Most people I've talked to who are not strictly technical are blown away by the realization that facebook for instance knows any site you've visited so long as it has a "like" button on it. "But wait how is this so?" is what I often get. To which I take a deep breath and say "You know what... It's magic". Truthfully people concerned about privacy either know what they are doing or use vpn's, tor and so on. The whole "consent" thing has simply turned into another annoying popup at this point.

JadeNB 6y ago
> While the cookie initiative has a good intention, I really don't think it's actually useful. Large amounts of the population(willing to bet north of 99%) have absolutely 0 clue what cookies are in the context of the web or what they imply. Most people just click on "accept", just to get it out of their way. And I do too often enough, granted I know the site I'm on. But isn't that exactly an argument for why it is useful? If a site puts this big banner in your way, and you have to get rid of it to navigate, and if it seems consequence-free, then you'll do it. This is just saying that there has to be a way past the cookie-consent wall, so that the decision is no longer between "agree to this apparently without consequences" or "no content", but among "agree to this apparently without consequences" or "decline". Maybe lots of people will still choose the former, but at least you get a meaningful alternative, and that'll reduce the people allowing cookies (and, more importantly, give an option to those who do know about what they're agreeing to).
alkonaut 6y ago
> Large amounts of the population(willing to bet north of 99%) have absolutely 0 clue what cookies are in the context of the web or what they imply. Most people just click on "accept", just to get it out of their way. That's exactly the reason the law exists! And that's why it has to say that the clueless option ("just clicking") should be the one preserving your privacy. It's why the law goes through such lengths to make the dumb thing the right thing: Because it's supposed to protect the privacy of people without those people even having to know what happens.
- axegon_ 6y ago
  I disagree. Your argument is the theoretical one, while mine is the practical. As I said, people do not know what cookies are and even if they did, everyone who has done analysis on user behavior knows that none of that makes a difference. Presented with two buttons, red and green, most users will click on the green one, without reading what either one of them says or implies, if they have some incentive to get to the other side. I've personally tried this with countless A/B tests and the results are evident every time: mindless clicking/tapping.
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    Then the law should be even stricter. The spirit of the law is that the no-op or mindless click should be the non consent. That’s why it has to be the more prominent option. Even coloring the consent button green and the reject red is clearly against the spirit of the law, if not the letter. I’m all for having a law that’s so strict that or requires a more complex action to consent (e.g if reject-but-continue is a click then consenting has to be a checkbox first etc). Mindless clicking is what should be handled. If users have to search/read/think the law is not going to help - but it should be there to help those who won’t/can’t.
    - axegon_ 6y ago
      I'm principle I'm with you completely, you have my vote here. But as I said there is a universe of difference between theory and practice. Make the law as strict as you like, "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups". Your users are people in large groups, even if they are separated physically. The political, social and as of recently the hygienic world has hammered all the nails in this coffin in recent years I'm afraid.
      - eitland 6y ago
        This isn't about stupid users but about companies deliberately "misunderstanding" while going out of their way to exactly what the law said they shouldn't do and hoping they'll get away with it line they did with the old "cookie law". Edit: also, another observation from the field: Often the users aren't as clueless as certain lazy admins claim. And I am a sysadmin :-)

JadeNB 6y ago

> While the cookie initiative has a good intention, I really don't think it's actually useful. Large amounts of the population(willing to bet north of 99%) have absolutely 0 clue what cookies are in the context of the web or what they imply. Most people just click on "accept", just to get it out of their way. And I do too often enough, granted I know the site I'm on. But isn't that exactly an argument for why it is useful? If a site puts this big banner in your way, and you have to get rid of it to navigate, and if it seems consequence-free, then you'll do it. This is just saying that there has to be a way past the cookie-consent wall, so that the decision is no longer between "agree to this apparently without consequences" or "no content", but among "agree to this apparently without consequences" or "decline". Maybe lots of people will still choose the former, but at least you get a meaningful alternative, and that'll reduce the people allowing cookies (and, more importantly, give an option to those who do know about what they're agreeing to).

alkonaut 6y ago

> Large amounts of the population(willing to bet north of 99%) have absolutely 0 clue what cookies are in the context of the web or what they imply. Most people just click on "accept", just to get it out of their way. That's exactly the reason the law exists! And that's why it has to say that the clueless option ("just clicking") should be the one preserving your privacy. It's why the law goes through such lengths to make the dumb thing the right thing: Because it's supposed to protect the privacy of people without those people even having to know what happens.

axegon_ 6y ago
I disagree. Your argument is the theoretical one, while mine is the practical. As I said, people do not know what cookies are and even if they did, everyone who has done analysis on user behavior knows that none of that makes a difference. Presented with two buttons, red and green, most users will click on the green one, without reading what either one of them says or implies, if they have some incentive to get to the other side. I've personally tried this with countless A/B tests and the results are evident every time: mindless clicking/tapping.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  Then the law should be even stricter. The spirit of the law is that the no-op or mindless click should be the non consent. That’s why it has to be the more prominent option. Even coloring the consent button green and the reject red is clearly against the spirit of the law, if not the letter. I’m all for having a law that’s so strict that or requires a more complex action to consent (e.g if reject-but-continue is a click then consenting has to be a checkbox first etc). Mindless clicking is what should be handled. If users have to search/read/think the law is not going to help - but it should be there to help those who won’t/can’t.
  - axegon_ 6y ago
    I'm principle I'm with you completely, you have my vote here. But as I said there is a universe of difference between theory and practice. Make the law as strict as you like, "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups". Your users are people in large groups, even if they are separated physically. The political, social and as of recently the hygienic world has hammered all the nails in this coffin in recent years I'm afraid.
    - eitland 6y ago
      This isn't about stupid users but about companies deliberately "misunderstanding" while going out of their way to exactly what the law said they shouldn't do and hoping they'll get away with it line they did with the old "cookie law". Edit: also, another observation from the field: Often the users aren't as clueless as certain lazy admins claim. And I am a sysadmin :-)