4 ms·

I'm baffled by the number of companies that should not have any need for third-party cookies and still go full-on dark pattern. In particular online shops: I'm

I'm baffled by the number of companies that should not have any need for third-party cookies and still go full-on dark pattern. In particular online shops: I'm already on their site, why would they loudly advertise "we're shady and want to trick you into selecting all cookies"? I've cancelled more than one purchase because I didn't want to bother with this.

javajosh 6y ago
It's certainly down to bad legal advice. Lawyers are trained to take everything they can get. If it turns out that was too much, then they frame it as a bargaining chip, as leverage to at least recover some fraction of what they previously took. It's sneaky, immoral, unethical and illegal. It also works.
- Taylor_OD 6y ago
  Taking everything one can get is not exclusive to lawyers. Many engineers would rather have more information/data than not enough. Better yet get all the data up front and then decide what you need later.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
One expects it of many companies. But the BBC seemingly have a dark pattern here - if you follow the cookie link it shows all cookies are turned off already, so there's nothing to do, no confirmation, nada. If you don't follow the link they of course have set tracking cookies ... so the cake^w link is a lie. IMO it would be fine to say "we were tracking you but when you followed the link we deleted those cookies and won't now set them". "Reject all", or default off ("no cookies are set, cock here to enable the committee types you wish") is better. What's far worse is the admission that they still use ad networks even when those networks are clearly breaking the law (ie they offer no settings to disable tracking). Indeed BBC should be going further and not allowing advertisers on their network to drop cookies if a user has disabled first-party cookies. Instead they say "go to these networks and disable it yourself", good luck with that! This from an org funded in [minor] part by taxation and whose rausin d'etre is supposed to be serving the public interest.
- hadrien01 6y ago
  They use ad networks only outside the UK, so the taxpayers are not tracked by these networks. They're very explicit about it in their cookies explanation: 'Set your cookie preferences for performance cookies. And if you’re outside the UK you can set your preferences for personalised advertising.'

javajosh 6y ago

It's certainly down to bad legal advice. Lawyers are trained to take everything they can get. If it turns out that was too much, then they frame it as a bargaining chip, as leverage to at least recover some fraction of what they previously took. It's sneaky, immoral, unethical and illegal. It also works.

Taylor_OD 6y ago
Taking everything one can get is not exclusive to lawyers. Many engineers would rather have more information/data than not enough. Better yet get all the data up front and then decide what you need later.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

One expects it of many companies. But the BBC seemingly have a dark pattern here - if you follow the cookie link it shows all cookies are turned off already, so there's nothing to do, no confirmation, nada. If you don't follow the link they of course have set tracking cookies ... so the cake^w link is a lie. IMO it would be fine to say "we were tracking you but when you followed the link we deleted those cookies and won't now set them". "Reject all", or default off ("no cookies are set, cock here to enable the committee types you wish") is better. What's far worse is the admission that they still use ad networks even when those networks are clearly breaking the law (ie they offer no settings to disable tracking). Indeed BBC should be going further and not allowing advertisers on their network to drop cookies if a user has disabled first-party cookies. Instead they say "go to these networks and disable it yourself", good luck with that! This from an org funded in [minor] part by taxation and whose rausin d'etre is supposed to be serving the public interest.

hadrien01 6y ago
They use ad networks only outside the UK, so the taxpayers are not tracked by these networks. They're very explicit about it in their cookies explanation: 'Set your cookie preferences for performance cookies. And if you’re outside the UK you can set your preferences for personalised advertising.'