4 ms·
The most egregious violation I've seen is weather.com's cookie process. Go to https://weather.com/en-GB/ https://weather.com/en-GB/ and click "Proceed with requ
by bb101 6y ago
The most egregious violation I've seen is weather.com's cookie process. Go to https://weather.com/en-GB/ https://weather.com/en-GB/ and click "Proceed with required cookies only". It's almost theatrical: first a spinning loading wheel, then the message "We are processing your request, this could take up to a few minutes to process." Then wait for their "Processing 0%" countdown take a few minutes to reach 100%. Anyone would think they are trying to discourage people from choosing that option?
- mattvot 6y agoLooking at the network requests when you hit that button it seems to be hitting a lot of tracking providers opt out API endpoints. Which is good I suppose, though better not to even include their scripts until you agree to it
- noja 6y agoSo if I opt-out, it (basically) sends my ip address to lots of trackers? Why? That sounds illegal. Why doesn't it simply not load the trackers?
- hutzlibu 6y agoOoops, erm, technical reasons I guess. Well, it could have been really easier to implement the opt out it later by this design, but it is more likely, that the dataflow is intended.
- riggsdk 6y agoJust the fact that it sends out-out HTTP calls to all those providers means that they now know that you are using that website. It's terrible design.
- 411111111111111 6y agoPretty sure it's designed with that in mind... The saying not to attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetance only works if the actor isn't generally malicious. AdTech definitely is.
- waihtis 6y agoHilarious. While I was observing this I also noticed > Weather.com - an IBM business felt like it explained this design pattern perfectly
- bdefore 6y agoWasn't it owned by Disney previously? I think that more accurately explains the tracking obsession.
- reaperducer 6y agoWasn't it owned by Disney previously? I think that more accurately explains the tracking obsession. No, it wasn't. It was at one time partially owned by NBC. Perhaps that's what you remember.
- ChrisIsTaken 6y agoIt was created by Landmark, then offloaded in 2008 to NBCUniversal who still own it under Comcast.
- gadders 6y agoI do wonder if some of the "No" requests are being throttled. Seem to be a lot slower than "Yes" on a lot of sites.
- GordonS 6y agoThere's another one of these things that's used on lots of sites, that takes three (3!) minutes, with no network requests or anything happening after the first couple of seconds. I forget the name of the company behind it, but it's a large one, one of the ones that sites proudly proclaim with a "protected by X" image. It's beyond a dark pattern - it's plain fucking disgusting behaviour.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago> It's beyond a dark pattern - it's plain fucking disgusting behaviour. As I mentioned in my other comment, I suspect it's actually forbidden by the GDPR, but that doesn't stop anyone.
- SheinhardtWigCo 6y agoSomeone should set up a Wall of Shame for these.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago> Anyone would think they are trying to discourage people from choosing that option? I realise it's comically unenforced, but doesn't the GDPR forbid websites from doing that? Obvious ugly workaround: use a Private Browsing session for that website.
- josefx 6y agoStill getting a unique finger print when I open a "private" browsing window. Might as well skip hard hats and use paper bags instead, the effectiveness is similar.