5 ms·

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

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?
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    > You'd just have more and more websites that block European users. Great! It frees up space for more respectful alternatives. However ads are universally disliked and the problems the current ad model brings (privacy, spam/scams/malware, inappropriate/illegal content, etc) are generally universal too, so it's just a matter of time before similar regulation is enacted outside of Europe too. > because it would ruin all the freely available websites. Laws against theft/robbery/carjacking ruin free/below-market-rate car rental websites too, yet nobody is complaining about those because society has decided that theft is bad even if it would technically open up new business opportunities that wouldn't otherwise be possible. Why should this be any different?

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?
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  > You'd just have more and more websites that block European users. Great! It frees up space for more respectful alternatives. However ads are universally disliked and the problems the current ad model brings (privacy, spam/scams/malware, inappropriate/illegal content, etc) are generally universal too, so it's just a matter of time before similar regulation is enacted outside of Europe too. > because it would ruin all the freely available websites. Laws against theft/robbery/carjacking ruin free/below-market-rate car rental websites too, yet nobody is complaining about those because society has decided that theft is bad even if it would technically open up new business opportunities that wouldn't otherwise be possible. Why should this be any different?