5 ms·

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 bi

by 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.
    - shakow 5y ago
      > As a consequence your website makes no money. At that point why run the website at all? Many European websites are now proposing users to either accept cookies or buy a subscription to the website. This looks like a very sane way to address the problem to me. > You'd just have more and more websites that block European users. Why should I care? Market changes, adapt or disappear.
      - qybaz 5y ago
        >Why should I care? Market changes, adapt or disappear. This is not the market changing, it's a law crushing a free market that already existed.
        aspenmayer 5y ago
        > This is not the market changing, it's a law crushing a free market that already existed. In that case, what’s the difference between a free market and a compulsory market? If market participants must only participate by choosing to spend or to not spend, they are beholden to the economic system, and are unfree actors in the status quo “free market” economic situation. And yet by exercising political freedom to make themselves (more) free, these unfree participants in the “free market” somehow make the market unfree, and instead of viewing that as a benefit to market participants, you view it as a loss of freedom in the status quo “free market” to the detriment of the unfree participants. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand where you’re coming from.
        qybaz 5y ago
        The "unfree" participants could choose not to visit the websites, thus not receiving the content/services they want.
        aspenmayer 5y ago
        And those same “unfree” participants are free to legislate what websites may or may not do with information that websites collect. The websites are similarly free to not do things that are prohibited by law in a given jurisdiction, or else not offer services to users subject to that legal jurisdiction. There was never any “free market” status quo in the absence of regulation to begin with, either in statute or in practice. There always are forces external to the market which act upon it, and some of those forces are individuals and groups of people. To say the free market exists, did previously exist, or could one day exist, is a truth claim I don’t see the evidence to support. Advocating for a “free market” as opposed to the status quo is both an economic and a political position, and thus should address both economic and political aspects of the issue you present. What about this would you rather be different, and how so? Or what about this would you characterize differently?
ThunderSizzle 5y ago
We already knew cookies were being used everywhere. I dont need to be told the same thing 100000 times because it makes some people feel better and altruistic. It didn't bring any benefits and has wasted excessive amounts of my time.
- watwut 5y ago
  The banners are about tracking, not about cookies. You can use cookies and not have banner.
- shakow 5y ago
  *tracking cookies First-party, non-tracking cookies do not require a cookie banner. I'm always flabbergaste how good the propaganda machines of ads agencies is that people are actively fighting protective measure on their behalf. Nihil novi sub sole I guess, but it's fascinating to see this process happen first hand.
  - ThunderSizzle 5y ago
    If it took a banner for you to realize people used Google analytics or similar services, then the banner isn't helping you avoid it. You should've been running a blocker already. I run third party blockers as much as possible, but these banners are just excessive and useless.
    - shakow 5y ago
      > then the banner isn't helping you avoid it. That's just plain false. I know many people, especially in the older, less technically literate people, who now systematically disable such analytics thanks to these banners – people who had never realised the real dimension of users tracking before this law.
  - Aerroon 5y ago
    It's not propaganda by ad agencies. Why make it into a conspiracy? There are pretty great tools out there that you can use for websites, such as Google analytics, but the moment you use that you're implementing a cookie banner. Want to have ads? Cookie banner. Want to have YouTube/Twitter/whatever integration? Cookie banner. europa.eu has a cookie banner. A website that doesn't even need to pay its own bills!
Abroszka 5y ago
> I don't understand the hate toward cookie banners. My main issue with it is that if I disable cookies, then every single time I need to accept it. If I enable cookies then I only need to accept it one time. I think this annoying thing actually reduces security, because people are more likely to just not delete the cookies at the end of the session to avoid this annoying popup. Makes the web totally unusable if you delete the cookies regularly without a plugin to hide the cookie banner.
Aerroon 5y ago
>I don't understand the hate toward cookie banners. Because they fundamentally don't work. The EU politicians had to have known that they didn't work from previous experience, but decided to inflict us with these pop ups anyway. Their own damn website has this pop up.[0] Reasons why cookie banners don't work: 1. They need to be implemented by the website. This means that if a website decides to ignore the cookie law they can set all the cookies they want and you won't be notified. If they are outside of the EU's jurisdiction they won't even care. 2. Targeted advertising is how a lot of websites pay the bills. This means that websites will use every trick in the book to get you to not click on the "refuse" button. Why wouldn't they? You're using their server time, but generating no revenue if you refuse. Websites will fight this process. They'll eventually lose, but the internet will either turn into a splinternet or cable TV. Ads are what make free websites work and cookies is how it happens right now. 3. Websites are made by people who aren't always well-versed in legalese and can't just hire a lawyer for everything. They don't always know whether they need a pop up or not. The safer option is to put it up there. If the EU's own website has one then probably so does yours. 4. Popups are annoying. Cookies should be handled by the browser. Not some harebrained JavaScript. [0] https://www.europa.eu https://www.europa.eu
causi 5y ago
At least twenty years ago the popups had voluptuous women for me to look at before before I closed them in annoyance. Now they're still spying on me same as before but they're irritating me while they do it.

by shakow 5y ago

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.
  - shakow 5y ago
    > As a consequence your website makes no money. At that point why run the website at all? Many European websites are now proposing users to either accept cookies or buy a subscription to the website. This looks like a very sane way to address the problem to me. > You'd just have more and more websites that block European users. Why should I care? Market changes, adapt or disappear.
    - qybaz 5y ago
      >Why should I care? Market changes, adapt or disappear. This is not the market changing, it's a law crushing a free market that already existed.
      - aspenmayer 5y ago
        > This is not the market changing, it's a law crushing a free market that already existed. In that case, what’s the difference between a free market and a compulsory market? If market participants must only participate by choosing to spend or to not spend, they are beholden to the economic system, and are unfree actors in the status quo “free market” economic situation. And yet by exercising political freedom to make themselves (more) free, these unfree participants in the “free market” somehow make the market unfree, and instead of viewing that as a benefit to market participants, you view it as a loss of freedom in the status quo “free market” to the detriment of the unfree participants. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand where you’re coming from.
        qybaz 5y ago
        The "unfree" participants could choose not to visit the websites, thus not receiving the content/services they want.
        aspenmayer 5y ago
        And those same “unfree” participants are free to legislate what websites may or may not do with information that websites collect. The websites are similarly free to not do things that are prohibited by law in a given jurisdiction, or else not offer services to users subject to that legal jurisdiction. There was never any “free market” status quo in the absence of regulation to begin with, either in statute or in practice. There always are forces external to the market which act upon it, and some of those forces are individuals and groups of people. To say the free market exists, did previously exist, or could one day exist, is a truth claim I don’t see the evidence to support. Advocating for a “free market” as opposed to the status quo is both an economic and a political position, and thus should address both economic and political aspects of the issue you present. What about this would you rather be different, and how so? Or what about this would you characterize differently?

ThunderSizzle 5y ago

We already knew cookies were being used everywhere. I dont need to be told the same thing 100000 times because it makes some people feel better and altruistic. It didn't bring any benefits and has wasted excessive amounts of my time.

watwut 5y ago
The banners are about tracking, not about cookies. You can use cookies and not have banner.
shakow 5y ago
*tracking cookies First-party, non-tracking cookies do not require a cookie banner. I'm always flabbergaste how good the propaganda machines of ads agencies is that people are actively fighting protective measure on their behalf. Nihil novi sub sole I guess, but it's fascinating to see this process happen first hand.
- ThunderSizzle 5y ago
  If it took a banner for you to realize people used Google analytics or similar services, then the banner isn't helping you avoid it. You should've been running a blocker already. I run third party blockers as much as possible, but these banners are just excessive and useless.
  - shakow 5y ago
    > then the banner isn't helping you avoid it. That's just plain false. I know many people, especially in the older, less technically literate people, who now systematically disable such analytics thanks to these banners – people who had never realised the real dimension of users tracking before this law.
- Aerroon 5y ago
  It's not propaganda by ad agencies. Why make it into a conspiracy? There are pretty great tools out there that you can use for websites, such as Google analytics, but the moment you use that you're implementing a cookie banner. Want to have ads? Cookie banner. Want to have YouTube/Twitter/whatever integration? Cookie banner. europa.eu has a cookie banner. A website that doesn't even need to pay its own bills!

Abroszka 5y ago

> I don't understand the hate toward cookie banners. My main issue with it is that if I disable cookies, then every single time I need to accept it. If I enable cookies then I only need to accept it one time. I think this annoying thing actually reduces security, because people are more likely to just not delete the cookies at the end of the session to avoid this annoying popup. Makes the web totally unusable if you delete the cookies regularly without a plugin to hide the cookie banner.

Aerroon 5y ago

>I don't understand the hate toward cookie banners. Because they fundamentally don't work. The EU politicians had to have known that they didn't work from previous experience, but decided to inflict us with these pop ups anyway. Their own damn website has this pop up.[0] Reasons why cookie banners don't work: 1. They need to be implemented by the website. This means that if a website decides to ignore the cookie law they can set all the cookies they want and you won't be notified. If they are outside of the EU's jurisdiction they won't even care. 2. Targeted advertising is how a lot of websites pay the bills. This means that websites will use every trick in the book to get you to not click on the "refuse" button. Why wouldn't they? You're using their server time, but generating no revenue if you refuse. Websites will fight this process. They'll eventually lose, but the internet will either turn into a splinternet or cable TV. Ads are what make free websites work and cookies is how it happens right now. 3. Websites are made by people who aren't always well-versed in legalese and can't just hire a lawyer for everything. They don't always know whether they need a pop up or not. The safer option is to put it up there. If the EU's own website has one then probably so does yours. 4. Popups are annoying. Cookies should be handled by the browser. Not some harebrained JavaScript. [0] https://www.europa.eu https://www.europa.eu

causi 5y ago

At least twenty years ago the popups had voluptuous women for me to look at before before I closed them in annoyance. Now they're still spying on me same as before but they're irritating me while they do it.