5 ms·

Is this an explicit dark pattern, or just simplistic interpretation or misinterpretation of the allowed use of cookies? If you have a mandate to not allow any

Is this an explicit dark pattern, or just simplistic interpretation or misinterpretation of the allowed use of cookies? If you have a mandate to not allow any cookies or state to be kept client side, how will the site know to show or not the cookie approval notification? Twitter and Amazon should know better though. I've never seen persistent cookie notifications after logging in, which makes sense since the state of the cookie notification can be stored in the session data for having logged in.

torstenvl 5y ago
I don't think I implied there should be a mandate not to use cookies. I simply don't think users should be harassed with fake security alerts for clearing them. It's inaccurate to assume that clearing cookies on exit means that users need an email or notification along the lines of "Security Alert! An unrecognized device tried to access your account!" All major browsers allow you to clear cookies. Advanced users are more likely to clear cookies on a regular basis. Twitter almost certainly knows this. In light of that, their behavior seems designed to induce people to allow Twitter cookies to persist rather than merely "Allow for session"
- krono 5y ago
  Also, wow you're in luck, queue the busses and fire hydrants because it's captcha week!
- thwarted 5y ago
  Sorry, I should have said "if one has a mandate…", I meant the "royal you". The mandate I'm referring to is GDPR and CCPA, where a quick read might lead one to think that no cookies can be used and that every possible way that someone might think they are being tracked has to be acknowledged, so the websites err on the side of over notification. This is just as much legislators not understanding anything about technology and technologists trying to both the minimum required and meet the letter of the law. It's not a good situation.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    This post isn't about GDPR cookie popups. It's about security notifications.

torstenvl 5y ago

I don't think I implied there should be a mandate not to use cookies. I simply don't think users should be harassed with fake security alerts for clearing them. It's inaccurate to assume that clearing cookies on exit means that users need an email or notification along the lines of "Security Alert! An unrecognized device tried to access your account!" All major browsers allow you to clear cookies. Advanced users are more likely to clear cookies on a regular basis. Twitter almost certainly knows this. In light of that, their behavior seems designed to induce people to allow Twitter cookies to persist rather than merely "Allow for session"

krono 5y ago
Also, wow you're in luck, queue the busses and fire hydrants because it's captcha week!
thwarted 5y ago
Sorry, I should have said "if one has a mandate…", I meant the "royal you". The mandate I'm referring to is GDPR and CCPA, where a quick read might lead one to think that no cookies can be used and that every possible way that someone might think they are being tracked has to be acknowledged, so the websites err on the side of over notification. This is just as much legislators not understanding anything about technology and technologists trying to both the minimum required and meet the letter of the law. It's not a good situation.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  This post isn't about GDPR cookie popups. It's about security notifications.