4 ms·

elitist nonsense. They ought to be annoying. so sites that do not track you for advertising can just add your cookie when you actively sign in, without the ann

• benbristow 6y ago
  Get real, most sites aren't going to do that when they can get away with putting a modal/banner up. It's the end-user that gets the brunt. Most of the modals are full of dark patterns that basically force you to accept the cookies etc. unless you go through multiple different screens and checkboxes.
  • glsdfgkjsklfj 6y ago
    > It's the end-user that gets the brunt. as they should. At least it is in their face now and can entice curiosity.
    • benbristow 6y ago
      Let's be honest, the average user (even myself) will just click 'okay'. It doesn't help anyone and just causes annoyances for most users. If there was proper legislation to block the tracking full-stop then maybe it'd make a difference but in the end it's just a half-measure that causes frustration for both parties. The users that have to dismiss the prompts and websites that have to implement them.
      • glsdfgkjsklfj 6y ago
        you are missing my point. if you visit site A, you click OK, get all the cookies, get screwed, and annoyed. you visit site B, you don't see the popup, you don't get annoyed (and screwed with invisible tracking, but you just said you don't care about that) In the long run, we should hope site B will get less attrition and keep more users, by being less annoying (as a consequence of not tracking you)