3 ms·

I never accept those, because I highly suspect they're legally binding. The amount of those popups elements I have hidden using ublock with right click, it's s

by jokoon 5y ago

I never accept those, because I highly suspect they're legally binding. The amount of those popups elements I have hidden using ublock with right click, it's staggering. Some websites introduce a vertical-scroll: hidden; rule on <body> that I often need to remove manually, or to introduce a CSS rule in ublock. Reader view often help a lot, but some websites, like yahoo, make it so that reader view won't work (it will display the consent thing in reader view). Some websites in france went another route: they ask users to accept cookies or to pay instead. It's crazy. It really shows data really, really matters to them. Other gimmick, I had big troubles using the mozilla matrix server because of cookies, since I've set up firefox to delete all cookies at shutdown, except those in a whitelist.

the_other 5y ago
> I never accept those, because I highly suspect they're legally binding. Thanks for articulating a feeling I hadn't managed to put a label on yet.
avianlyric 5y ago
Thankfully GDPR makes it pretty clear they’re not legally binding if they don’t follow the rules. And most consent forms don’t follow the rules.
overlordalex 5y ago
> The amount of those popups elements I have hidden using ublock with right click, it's staggering. I have a bookmarklet saved that simply deletes fixed elements, making it faster and easier to get rid of those[0]. However I have noticed sites are starting to make their banners more akin to shrinkwrap agreements where they state that dismissing the popup or continuing to read without making a choice is equivalent to acceptance. [0] What I find most interesting is how many websites become much more readable by this - I hate sites that use a good third of the screen real-estate for headers and footers, nevermind those awful menus that only appear on scroll-up and cover the top few lines of content. https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-headers/ https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-headers/
- hansel_der 5y ago
  > they state that dismissing the popup or continuing to read without making a choice is equivalent to acceptance. this will not fly with gdpr (which is the whole point of the popup) as consent has to be explicit.

by jokoon 5y ago

the_other 5y ago

> I never accept those, because I highly suspect they're legally binding. Thanks for articulating a feeling I hadn't managed to put a label on yet.

avianlyric 5y ago

Thankfully GDPR makes it pretty clear they’re not legally binding if they don’t follow the rules. And most consent forms don’t follow the rules.

overlordalex 5y ago

> The amount of those popups elements I have hidden using ublock with right click, it's staggering. I have a bookmarklet saved that simply deletes fixed elements, making it faster and easier to get rid of those[0]. However I have noticed sites are starting to make their banners more akin to shrinkwrap agreements where they state that dismissing the popup or continuing to read without making a choice is equivalent to acceptance. [0] What I find most interesting is how many websites become much more readable by this - I hate sites that use a good third of the screen real-estate for headers and footers, nevermind those awful menus that only appear on scroll-up and cover the top few lines of content. https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-headers/ https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-headers/

hansel_der 5y ago
> they state that dismissing the popup or continuing to read without making a choice is equivalent to acceptance. this will not fly with gdpr (which is the whole point of the popup) as consent has to be explicit.