4 ms·

The article is trying to make the case that the problem is that the "Reject All" button is difficult to find on the cookie popup and it's the site's fault for t

by nickpp 5y ago

The article is trying to make the case that the problem is that the "Reject All" button is difficult to find on the cookie popup and it's the site's fault for that. No. Let's make one thing clear. The problem is with the popup itself, with the fact that it exists. And it exists because the bone-headed law that required it: the GDPR. The fact that the very first decision I have to make when visiting a website is about an issue I don't five a flying f&$# about is mind-boggling. The fact that somebody decided to elevate for me something completely harmless ("tracking me online") to a level more important than any other issue when it comes to web browsing is absolutely incredible. The fact that the cost of both the implementation of this on the website and that of the stupid selection imposed on the site visitor was completely ignored is aggressively idiotic. And the fact that "somebody" made that decision into one of the most ambiguous, evasive, but at the same incredibly punishing laws around is criminal. How do we know this? The perfect A/B test. We had the web before GDPR. It wasn't pretty but it worked. Now we have the web after GDPR. It's a cluster-f&$%. The only thing that changed: the stupid law. Abolish GDPR!

mola 5y ago
What? Being tracked and analyzed in unknown ways without your concent seems very serious. The fact you got used to it doesn't make it less serious. Would you accept people following you around all day taking notes? I'd guess not, so what's the difference with web tracking? GDPR is good, the sites are doing their best to make the GDPR experience bad to encourage the existence of people with your opinion. It doesn't have to be that way, and hopefully the regulator will use its teeth and make companies using obvious dark patterns pay for their infringements.
- nickpp 5y ago
  > Being tracked and analyzed in unknown ways without your consent seems very serious. Really?! What is the worst thing that can happen? What exactly is the danger here? > Would you accept people following you around all day taking notes? While I browse the web? Sure, why not. I would certainly worry if it was the government doing it, since the government usually has nefarious reasons, but a private party... go straight ahead. That doesn't mean I can't take my own measures if and when I want my privacy, but that is MY choice. Not an idiotic law "protecting me" against my own will.
  - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
    Presumably you live in a democratic nation with a strong constitution, respect for law and order, lack of discrimination, and where freedom of speech is a non-negotiable absolute. Further, I assume your country has a strong army and/or is separated from any would-be invaders by tall mountains, deep oceans, or both. In that case, probably the worst thing you need to worry about is some level of power imbalance when negotiating with large companies over insurance rates, real estate, or credit. So, you know how some places have these oddly specific laws based on some of something that happened there? Well, a lot of places in the EU have had some Interesting experiences with people being tracked and analyzed in unknown ways. Hence the laws against it.
    - nickpp 5y ago
      I live in the EU, but not in one of the countries from your first two paragraphs. So, I really wonder about those "interesting experiences" with people tracked and analyzed and how being tracked gives me a power imbalance with large companies?! All I got from being tracked so far was repetitive ads for the same stuff I just purchased on Amazon. Dumb.
      - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
        In eastern Europe, the original people doing the tracking and analyzing were your favorite local secret police of course. (take your pick, and I'm sure we can google some examples). I'm pretty sure they'd be quite jealous of some of the modern advertising companies. That said, even if you're in a west European country with a long and proud democratic tradition (like -say- the Netherlands); you can find examples of people accidentally revealing information about themselves in a census (to wit: religious affiliation) thinking What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Well, the neighbors invaded, demanded the census data, and then hauled off everyone with the Wrong Affiliation to be worked to death and/or gassed. Again, you can imagine it would have been much easier for them if they could have just raided Facebook's offices; but fortunately Facebook didn't yet exist back then. But even if you have a stalwart democracy surrounded on all sides by the sea, you can still get in trouble if discrimination is rife. See for instance the case of Alan Turing, a man who helped Great Britain shorten WWII by at least a year, and saved many lives. However, people found out his sexual orientation, and he ended up being driven to suicide. One could eg. imagine using Mr. Turing's social graph (derived from advertising/tracking/location/phone metadata) to track down further people to arrest. It should also be somewhat easy to guess someone's orientation based on what sites they visit, for instance.
gspr 5y ago
> The fact that the very first decision I have to make when visiting a website is about an issue I don't five a flying f&$# about is mind-boggling. You seem to have a hard time understanding that laws may be designed to protect people who are not you.
- nickpp 5y ago
  What percent of the population do you think has as the first priority when visiting a website the detail that they are tracked or not? What percent do you think even cares? And what is the law protecting them against?! I still have to discover the horrifying malice tracking does to visitors. So far I know two downsides: resource usage and ads following you. Now compare that with the gigantic waste of time when hunting and answering the stupid popup every time I visit a new site... This is how it is when a bureaucrat decides to protect you from yourself: reminds me of the War on Drugs.
  - gspr 5y ago
    > What percent of the population do you think has as the first priority when visiting a website the detail that they are tracked or not? Why does it have to be first priority in order to matter a lot? > What percent do you think even cares? I don't know, exactly. I seem to recall that several tens of percents of people are worried about technological tracking, so I'd hazard a guess of a few tens of percents. > I still have to discover the horrifying malice tracking does to visitors. So you're one of those people who'd happily stream your bathroom to the public? > This is how it is when a bureaucrat decides to protect you from yourself: reminds me of the War on Drugs. What a terrible analogy. It's not protecting you from yourself. You're welcome to accept all the tracking if you so wish. It's protecting you from the trackers!
    - nickpp 5y ago
      > Why does it have to be first priority in order to matter a lot? That is it: it doesn't matter to the regular Joe. At all. Because it was made first priority by throwing it into his face as the first experience when visiting a new website by this insane regulation. > several tens of percents of people are worried about technological tracking Are they truly worried about it or they are just saying that? Because there were ways to avoid tracking even before GDPR but what percent of those people used them? And are they worried enough to pay some membership or simply stop visiting the offending website?! > happily stream your bathroom to the public Are you really equating cookie tracking with bathroom privacy?! That's quite a stretch. Even then, I am not sure if there are laws protecting my bathroom privacy, but if there were I am sure they don't require me so sign some sort of waiver every time I take a dump in my own damn house! > It's protecting you from the trackers! Well now I can sleep so much better. I was quite worried about those awful trackers and their... tracking habits. Good thing those Brussels bureaucrats, in their infinite wisdom, thought to protect me against such a horrifying danger, a danger I was completely helpless to protect myself from. What other things are endangering me right now and I have no idea? Somebody call the politicians for help!
vagrantJin 5y ago
I think the issue here is the law, but malicious compliance to that law. Which is bad. The web should not be an ad marketplace that just happens to have content. The favoured rhetoric of the giant corps is that ads pay for the free content, which is balderdash. It's because these gigantic websites are little more than platforms sucking the air out of the web. You and I produce and consume the actual content. We can't allow middlemen to hold us hostage because they want more ad revenue.

by nickpp 5y ago

mola 5y ago

What? Being tracked and analyzed in unknown ways without your concent seems very serious. The fact you got used to it doesn't make it less serious. Would you accept people following you around all day taking notes? I'd guess not, so what's the difference with web tracking? GDPR is good, the sites are doing their best to make the GDPR experience bad to encourage the existence of people with your opinion. It doesn't have to be that way, and hopefully the regulator will use its teeth and make companies using obvious dark patterns pay for their infringements.

nickpp 5y ago
> Being tracked and analyzed in unknown ways without your consent seems very serious. Really?! What is the worst thing that can happen? What exactly is the danger here? > Would you accept people following you around all day taking notes? While I browse the web? Sure, why not. I would certainly worry if it was the government doing it, since the government usually has nefarious reasons, but a private party... go straight ahead. That doesn't mean I can't take my own measures if and when I want my privacy, but that is MY choice. Not an idiotic law "protecting me" against my own will.
- Kim_Bruning 5y ago
  Presumably you live in a democratic nation with a strong constitution, respect for law and order, lack of discrimination, and where freedom of speech is a non-negotiable absolute. Further, I assume your country has a strong army and/or is separated from any would-be invaders by tall mountains, deep oceans, or both. In that case, probably the worst thing you need to worry about is some level of power imbalance when negotiating with large companies over insurance rates, real estate, or credit. So, you know how some places have these oddly specific laws based on some of something that happened there? Well, a lot of places in the EU have had some Interesting experiences with people being tracked and analyzed in unknown ways. Hence the laws against it.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    I live in the EU, but not in one of the countries from your first two paragraphs. So, I really wonder about those "interesting experiences" with people tracked and analyzed and how being tracked gives me a power imbalance with large companies?! All I got from being tracked so far was repetitive ads for the same stuff I just purchased on Amazon. Dumb.
    - Kim_Bruning 5y ago
      In eastern Europe, the original people doing the tracking and analyzing were your favorite local secret police of course. (take your pick, and I'm sure we can google some examples). I'm pretty sure they'd be quite jealous of some of the modern advertising companies. That said, even if you're in a west European country with a long and proud democratic tradition (like -say- the Netherlands); you can find examples of people accidentally revealing information about themselves in a census (to wit: religious affiliation) thinking What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Well, the neighbors invaded, demanded the census data, and then hauled off everyone with the Wrong Affiliation to be worked to death and/or gassed. Again, you can imagine it would have been much easier for them if they could have just raided Facebook's offices; but fortunately Facebook didn't yet exist back then. But even if you have a stalwart democracy surrounded on all sides by the sea, you can still get in trouble if discrimination is rife. See for instance the case of Alan Turing, a man who helped Great Britain shorten WWII by at least a year, and saved many lives. However, people found out his sexual orientation, and he ended up being driven to suicide. One could eg. imagine using Mr. Turing's social graph (derived from advertising/tracking/location/phone metadata) to track down further people to arrest. It should also be somewhat easy to guess someone's orientation based on what sites they visit, for instance.

gspr 5y ago

> The fact that the very first decision I have to make when visiting a website is about an issue I don't five a flying f&$# about is mind-boggling. You seem to have a hard time understanding that laws may be designed to protect people who are not you.

nickpp 5y ago
What percent of the population do you think has as the first priority when visiting a website the detail that they are tracked or not? What percent do you think even cares? And what is the law protecting them against?! I still have to discover the horrifying malice tracking does to visitors. So far I know two downsides: resource usage and ads following you. Now compare that with the gigantic waste of time when hunting and answering the stupid popup every time I visit a new site... This is how it is when a bureaucrat decides to protect you from yourself: reminds me of the War on Drugs.
- gspr 5y ago
  > What percent of the population do you think has as the first priority when visiting a website the detail that they are tracked or not? Why does it have to be first priority in order to matter a lot? > What percent do you think even cares? I don't know, exactly. I seem to recall that several tens of percents of people are worried about technological tracking, so I'd hazard a guess of a few tens of percents. > I still have to discover the horrifying malice tracking does to visitors. So you're one of those people who'd happily stream your bathroom to the public? > This is how it is when a bureaucrat decides to protect you from yourself: reminds me of the War on Drugs. What a terrible analogy. It's not protecting you from yourself. You're welcome to accept all the tracking if you so wish. It's protecting you from the trackers!
  - nickpp 5y ago
    > Why does it have to be first priority in order to matter a lot? That is it: it doesn't matter to the regular Joe. At all. Because it was made first priority by throwing it into his face as the first experience when visiting a new website by this insane regulation. > several tens of percents of people are worried about technological tracking Are they truly worried about it or they are just saying that? Because there were ways to avoid tracking even before GDPR but what percent of those people used them? And are they worried enough to pay some membership or simply stop visiting the offending website?! > happily stream your bathroom to the public Are you really equating cookie tracking with bathroom privacy?! That's quite a stretch. Even then, I am not sure if there are laws protecting my bathroom privacy, but if there were I am sure they don't require me so sign some sort of waiver every time I take a dump in my own damn house! > It's protecting you from the trackers! Well now I can sleep so much better. I was quite worried about those awful trackers and their... tracking habits. Good thing those Brussels bureaucrats, in their infinite wisdom, thought to protect me against such a horrifying danger, a danger I was completely helpless to protect myself from. What other things are endangering me right now and I have no idea? Somebody call the politicians for help!

vagrantJin 5y ago

I think the issue here is the law, but malicious compliance to that law. Which is bad. The web should not be an ad marketplace that just happens to have content. The favoured rhetoric of the giant corps is that ads pay for the free content, which is balderdash. It's because these gigantic websites are little more than platforms sucking the air out of the web. You and I produce and consume the actual content. We can't allow middlemen to hold us hostage because they want more ad revenue.