7 ms·

Thank the Lord reality (still) does not have cookie banners.

by qybaz 5y ago

cuu508 5y ago
When you sign up for a store loyalty card, there's usually a form you fill out and sign. That's your "cookie consent".
- qybaz 5y ago
  I don't have a problem with accepting some ToS when I sign up to a service. My problem is this new law where you have to accept the ToS of every single website on the internet before you can use it, then the ad networks, the analytics services, etc. It would be like having to sign a ream of papers every time I enter a store.
  - summm 5y ago
    The sites wouldn't need to get your consent for justifiable usage only. They actively decide they want more than that, they want to sell your data. So it's on them, the law itself is fine.
    - qybaz 5y ago
      Given that the sites wouldn't exist at all if it wasn't for the ad networks they use to feed their editors, it seems justifiable to me!
      - Nextgrid 5y ago
        I have zero problems with ad-supported shit going out of business and making space for good, paid content. Imagine a world where content has to be so good as to convince people to take out their wallet. No more clickbait, "this video is sponsored by ShitVPN", chumboxes, etc.
        Aerroon 5y ago
        I can imagine such a world. It would be cable TV with heavy region locks. The poorer parts of the world wouldn't be on it at all. Paying for things online is still a terrible experience. You need a credit card, which isn't always easy to get outside of the rich western countries. I would never have used websites like reddit, HN, Twitter, YouTube or Google if I had had to pay for it. As a kid I wouldn't have been able to pay even if I had wanted to. >No more clickbait, "this video is sponsored by ShitVPN", chumboxes, etc. No, you would have even more of this, because this type of monetization is not linked to cookies.
        Nextgrid 5y ago
        I disagree. Advertisers usually buy ads to encourage the purchase of a product/service. It is not sustainable to spend more on advertising than what the revenue you get back from it in the form of purchases - over the long term, the ROI has to be positive. Ad-supported services still exist in poor parts of the world despite the advertisers only being able to pay very little (as it has to be relative to the local price of the advertised goods/services), so the prices of paid services can similarly be adjusted to compensate. > heavy region locks This is already done, I'm pretty sure Netflix in India costs a fraction of what you'd pay in the US for example. While it's not an ideal solution, it's mostly a solved problem. > Paying for things online is still a terrible experience. Agreed on this one, but again the reason it isn't is because currently ads are a "good enough" model that there is not enough market pressure to develop something better. If ads become unsustainable, the content industry will have no choice but to either die out or compromise and collaborate to develop a payment model that has better UX. > you would have even more of this Only if it's allowed. If ads are nuked out of existence due to enforced regulation (promoting products makes you a reseller from the eyes of the law and you need to assume liability and provide support & warranty) or even just platform rules (posting commercial content on YouTube requires a costly subscription - shilling sponsored products without it will result in a ban) you wouldn't have it.
        throwawayboise 5y ago
        Outside of email (which I do pay for), I can't think of an online service I'd pay for. HN is about as close as it gets, but I wouldn't pay for what it is today.
  - mananaysiempre 5y ago
    You don’t, that’s the point of the law. As in, the old “EU cookie law” focused on you knowing the terms, but that proved ineffectual where every website operator said “accept or GTFO” (you’d think that would end up an unstable equilibrium, but it didn’t). Thus the “new” GDPR is predicated on the idea that consent given under “... or GTFO” terms is invalid, given the imbalance in negotiating power, and said consent (where required) had to be voluntary by that definition. The result is cigarette-labelling-level malicious compliance on part of website operators (and compliance-in-a-box vendors they use). Many of the things you see, such as requiring you to turn off every single “purpose” or “partner”, are manifestly illegal (or rather, don’t legally constitute voluntary consent, so showing them is legal but tracking you afterwards isn’t), but enforcement has been lackluster so far. We’ll see where we end up I guess. (I genuinely don’t know how I want this to go.)
- Overtonwindow 5y ago
  I have never given correct information for those. I always sign up with the name of a president and the address of the White House. I’ve been using a phone number from 15 years ago for those.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >I have never given correct information for those. I always sign up with the name of a president and the address of the White House. I’ve been using a phone number from 15 years ago for those. I believe +1 (202) 456-1414 is the number[0] you want to use. [0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/get-involved/write-or-call/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/get-involved/write-or-call/
shakow 5y ago
I don't understand the hate toward cookie banners. It's like if the citizens of a surveillance state complained if civilian-dressed informants had to carry a big ugly sign. Sure, the sign is ugly and everywhere; but maybe the actual problem is that there are so many informants that you have to see so many signs, rather than their signs being ugly. Shoot the actual problem (i.e. the dark patterns and malicious compliance of the concerned websites), not the messenger.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  This is so true.
- nulbyte 5y ago
  Both are a problem in their own right. Tracking visitors to make up for your lackluster business model is abusive, but cookie banners as usually implemented are but one way to comply with regulations aimed at curtailing this. And in my book, it's a form of malicious compliance, making it equally part of the problem.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    Annoying consent flows aren't compliant, at least not with the GDPR. A compliant consent flow should make it as easy to accept as it is to decline, so pre-ticked checkboxes or hiding/burying the decline option doesn't comply. Incompetent regulators that are asleep at the wheel and still haven't done anything to punish this (GDPR went into effect in 2018) are definitely a problem though.
    - Aerroon 5y ago
      Even if the regulators attacked more websites it wouldn't matter. You'd just have more and more websites that block European users. You can't expect websites to give you a pop up that asks whether they can monetize your visit or not. Everyone's going to click "refuse" because ads are annoying. As a consequence your website makes no money. At that point why run the website at all? Regulators don't want to regulate too hard, because it would ruin all the freely available websites.
southerntofu 5y ago
Doesn't it, though? Are you not many times asked to "just sign this paper" which you are not expected to read?

Thank the Lord reality (still) does not have cookie banners.

by qybaz 5y ago

Thank the Lord reality (still) does not have cookie banners.

cuu508 5y ago

When you sign up for a store loyalty card, there's usually a form you fill out and sign. That's your "cookie consent".

qybaz 5y ago
I don't have a problem with accepting some ToS when I sign up to a service. My problem is this new law where you have to accept the ToS of every single website on the internet before you can use it, then the ad networks, the analytics services, etc. It would be like having to sign a ream of papers every time I enter a store.
- summm 5y ago
  The sites wouldn't need to get your consent for justifiable usage only. They actively decide they want more than that, they want to sell your data. So it's on them, the law itself is fine.
  - qybaz 5y ago
    Given that the sites wouldn't exist at all if it wasn't for the ad networks they use to feed their editors, it seems justifiable to me!
    - Nextgrid 5y ago
      I have zero problems with ad-supported shit going out of business and making space for good, paid content. Imagine a world where content has to be so good as to convince people to take out their wallet. No more clickbait, "this video is sponsored by ShitVPN", chumboxes, etc.
      - Aerroon 5y ago
        I can imagine such a world. It would be cable TV with heavy region locks. The poorer parts of the world wouldn't be on it at all. Paying for things online is still a terrible experience. You need a credit card, which isn't always easy to get outside of the rich western countries. I would never have used websites like reddit, HN, Twitter, YouTube or Google if I had had to pay for it. As a kid I wouldn't have been able to pay even if I had wanted to. >No more clickbait, "this video is sponsored by ShitVPN", chumboxes, etc. No, you would have even more of this, because this type of monetization is not linked to cookies.
        Nextgrid 5y ago
        I disagree. Advertisers usually buy ads to encourage the purchase of a product/service. It is not sustainable to spend more on advertising than what the revenue you get back from it in the form of purchases - over the long term, the ROI has to be positive. Ad-supported services still exist in poor parts of the world despite the advertisers only being able to pay very little (as it has to be relative to the local price of the advertised goods/services), so the prices of paid services can similarly be adjusted to compensate. > heavy region locks This is already done, I'm pretty sure Netflix in India costs a fraction of what you'd pay in the US for example. While it's not an ideal solution, it's mostly a solved problem. > Paying for things online is still a terrible experience. Agreed on this one, but again the reason it isn't is because currently ads are a "good enough" model that there is not enough market pressure to develop something better. If ads become unsustainable, the content industry will have no choice but to either die out or compromise and collaborate to develop a payment model that has better UX. > you would have even more of this Only if it's allowed. If ads are nuked out of existence due to enforced regulation (promoting products makes you a reseller from the eyes of the law and you need to assume liability and provide support & warranty) or even just platform rules (posting commercial content on YouTube requires a costly subscription - shilling sponsored products without it will result in a ban) you wouldn't have it.
      - throwawayboise 5y ago
        Outside of email (which I do pay for), I can't think of an online service I'd pay for. HN is about as close as it gets, but I wouldn't pay for what it is today.
- mananaysiempre 5y ago
  You don’t, that’s the point of the law. As in, the old “EU cookie law” focused on you knowing the terms, but that proved ineffectual where every website operator said “accept or GTFO” (you’d think that would end up an unstable equilibrium, but it didn’t). Thus the “new” GDPR is predicated on the idea that consent given under “... or GTFO” terms is invalid, given the imbalance in negotiating power, and said consent (where required) had to be voluntary by that definition. The result is cigarette-labelling-level malicious compliance on part of website operators (and compliance-in-a-box vendors they use). Many of the things you see, such as requiring you to turn off every single “purpose” or “partner”, are manifestly illegal (or rather, don’t legally constitute voluntary consent, so showing them is legal but tracking you afterwards isn’t), but enforcement has been lackluster so far. We’ll see where we end up I guess. (I genuinely don’t know how I want this to go.)
Overtonwindow 5y ago
I have never given correct information for those. I always sign up with the name of a president and the address of the White House. I’ve been using a phone number from 15 years ago for those.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >I have never given correct information for those. I always sign up with the name of a president and the address of the White House. I’ve been using a phone number from 15 years ago for those. I believe +1 (202) 456-1414 is the number[0] you want to use. [0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/get-involved/write-or-call/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/get-involved/write-or-call/

shakow 5y ago

I don't understand the hate toward cookie banners. It's like if the citizens of a surveillance state complained if civilian-dressed informants had to carry a big ugly sign. Sure, the sign is ugly and everywhere; but maybe the actual problem is that there are so many informants that you have to see so many signs, rather than their signs being ugly. Shoot the actual problem (i.e. the dark patterns and malicious compliance of the concerned websites), not the messenger.

southerntofu 5y ago
This is so true.
nulbyte 5y ago
Both are a problem in their own right. Tracking visitors to make up for your lackluster business model is abusive, but cookie banners as usually implemented are but one way to comply with regulations aimed at curtailing this. And in my book, it's a form of malicious compliance, making it equally part of the problem.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  Annoying consent flows aren't compliant, at least not with the GDPR. A compliant consent flow should make it as easy to accept as it is to decline, so pre-ticked checkboxes or hiding/burying the decline option doesn't comply. Incompetent regulators that are asleep at the wheel and still haven't done anything to punish this (GDPR went into effect in 2018) are definitely a problem though.
  - Aerroon 5y ago
    Even if the regulators attacked more websites it wouldn't matter. You'd just have more and more websites that block European users. You can't expect websites to give you a pop up that asks whether they can monetize your visit or not. Everyone's going to click "refuse" because ads are annoying. As a consequence your website makes no money. At that point why run the website at all? Regulators don't want to regulate too hard, because it would ruin all the freely available websites.

southerntofu 5y ago

Doesn't it, though? Are you not many times asked to "just sign this paper" which you are not expected to read?