4 ms·
Well, it is better, since I assume that you don't click "yes, allow". If you would, you would likely have a cookie saying "he/she is ours" with a lifetime longe
by retSava 6y ago
Well, it is better, since I assume that you don't click "yes, allow". If you would, you would likely have a cookie saying "he/she is ours" with a lifetime longer than the heatdeath of the universe. If you dare to click no, that's when you get 10k options and optouts and have to send fax to someones grandma.
The root cause of your experience being worse is not the legislation, it's that the site doesn't follow the intent/purpose of the law. They want to annoy you until you click "yes".
They could simply present you with a yes/no modal once and be done with it, but they choose not to, hoping that they will break you down with time.
- XCSme 6y ago> They could simply present you with a yes/no modal once and be done with it Any extra modal, as simple as it might be, leads to a really bad user experience and wasted time.
- slavak 6y agoThen don't place cookies that aren't necessary for the delivery of your service. There, problem solved! If invading your users' privacy is more important than your site's user experience, then the blame is on you, not the legislation.
- stale2002 6y agoNo, legislators don't get to ignore the unintended consequences of the laws that they implement. This applies to all laws that are passed. It is a frequent criticism and problem, of laws, is that there are often unintended consequences. And that is the fault of the law, that they did not consider the unintended consequences.
- XCSme 6y agoI agree, don't publish a law that you can't or don't know how to enforce. What they should have done is made a public tool that checks your website and says: yes this site is GDPR compliant or no, it is not because A,B,C.