5 ms·
Sure, I'm not a psychopath, I understand the usefulness of laws. I just don't think the restriction in question is reasonable. To me, it seems like a choice an
by cglace 6y ago
Sure, I'm not a psychopath, I understand the usefulness of laws. I just don't think the restriction in question is reasonable. To me, it seems like a choice an individual should make for themselves: access or data?
- ratww 6y agoThat would create perverse incentives and make the web a worse place. The point of the law is quite clear: allowing people to use the web without having anyone force them into giving away personal information. Sure, some companies won't be able to be creepy to users, but that was an acceptable tradeoff to the law.
- cglace 6y agoIn theory, in practice users consent and move on. You’ve just added an annoying extra step on every site. Victory?
- ratww 6y agoCollecting data and being annoying are entirely optional and a choice made by companies. The law is a still a partial victory for privacy.
- cglace 6y agoIt may be optional but it seems to be the standard rather than the exception. I just don't see people really caring about their privacy. When given the choice between convenience and privacy people generally choose convenience. As someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, I just end up annoyed.
- ratww 6y agoJust because something is a standard doesn't mean it's right. It also doesn't mean the law shouldn't discourage it. And just because people don't care doesn't mean a company is automatically allowed to track people. If the law were followed by the letter and companies weren't using dark patterns or ambiguous marketing-speak to convince people to allow cookies, only people with pro-tracking stances would allow it.
- athenot 6y agoOr users decline and move on, since decline is supposed to be just as easy as consent.