4 ms·

I know this is an unpopular take, but for sites (like Stackoverflow) that give me options (if they don't, some times I just skip), I will select "strict" and co

by liuliu 5y ago

I know this is an unpopular take, but for sites (like Stackoverflow) that give me options (if they don't, some times I just skip), I will select "strict" and continue. This is probably an improvement from previous status-quo for me.

_Algernon_ 5y ago
If they were competent, they would have worked with web browser developers, and made it browser side like other permission dialogs. Imagine what could have been: a standardised prompt that is always the same, persists when clearing cookies, etc. Instead we have full screen modal popups that render 5 seconds after page load and move around while loading.
- ranguna 5y ago
  You mean "do not track"? Good luck with that, even the EU was smart enough to know that that's not an option.
  - _Algernon_ 5y ago
    "Do not track" isn't even close to what I'm talking about. The only difference would be that the cookie banner is presented by the browser in a standardised way, similar to e.g. the webcam permissions dialogue. It would have the same (non-existent) legal enforcability as now but the browser could enforce it by blocking cookies and sites would be more usable, with fewer dark patterns.
    - ranguna 5y ago
      Ah so a new Web API ? That could work, yes.
paulgb 5y ago
I see that point, but the problem I have is the sites that offer the option (and respect it) are probably the sites that were the least offensive with tracking to begin with.
- afiori 5y ago
  Sound like a good rule of thumb on how much to trust a website
hogFeast 5y ago
Yes, what people really need when they browse the internet is to be asked every ten seconds what kind of cookies they want, every time a different form with different options that loads so many third-party scripts that my browser chokes...and then you have to fill out the form. I can see why bureaucrats like this system though, try to inflict the horror of their jobs onto everyone else. And ofc, this makes no difference for tracking at all. Most people just click whatever option is the default, they have no idea what cookies are, they have no idea how the cookies are being used because the forms don't tell you...what is the decision that is supposedly been improved here? People are still being tracked, but we showed them a totally baffling form and they clicked "Yes"...society has been preserved. Oh, and you have now split the internet into different regions...it was all worth it, no ragrats.

by liuliu 5y ago

_Algernon_ 5y ago

If they were competent, they would have worked with web browser developers, and made it browser side like other permission dialogs. Imagine what could have been: a standardised prompt that is always the same, persists when clearing cookies, etc. Instead we have full screen modal popups that render 5 seconds after page load and move around while loading.

ranguna 5y ago
You mean "do not track"? Good luck with that, even the EU was smart enough to know that that's not an option.
- _Algernon_ 5y ago
  "Do not track" isn't even close to what I'm talking about. The only difference would be that the cookie banner is presented by the browser in a standardised way, similar to e.g. the webcam permissions dialogue. It would have the same (non-existent) legal enforcability as now but the browser could enforce it by blocking cookies and sites would be more usable, with fewer dark patterns.
  - ranguna 5y ago
    Ah so a new Web API ? That could work, yes.

paulgb 5y ago

I see that point, but the problem I have is the sites that offer the option (and respect it) are probably the sites that were the least offensive with tracking to begin with.

afiori 5y ago
Sound like a good rule of thumb on how much to trust a website

hogFeast 5y ago

Yes, what people really need when they browse the internet is to be asked every ten seconds what kind of cookies they want, every time a different form with different options that loads so many third-party scripts that my browser chokes...and then you have to fill out the form. I can see why bureaucrats like this system though, try to inflict the horror of their jobs onto everyone else. And ofc, this makes no difference for tracking at all. Most people just click whatever option is the default, they have no idea what cookies are, they have no idea how the cookies are being used because the forms don't tell you...what is the decision that is supposedly been improved here? People are still being tracked, but we showed them a totally baffling form and they clicked "Yes"...society has been preserved. Oh, and you have now split the internet into different regions...it was all worth it, no ragrats.