4 ms·
The first two have two buttons of the same size, color and prominence at the bottom of the site allowing you to accept or refuse cookies. These are not cookie p
by HotHotLava 5y ago
The first two have two buttons of the same size, color and prominence at the bottom of the site allowing you to accept or refuse cookies. These are not cookie popups, and they don't promote one option over the other unlike what Facebook and Google were fined for here. So I'm not sure where you see a problem with these sites?
- signal11 5y agoThe problem with these is the cognitive overload that comes from dealing with cookie prompts on every website you visit, aka “cookie consent popup fatigue”. Regulators need to do better. Cookie popups such as these wouldn’t be a problem if we had a handful of websites. But they’re not helpful on the modern web with tens or even hundreds of sites visited by nontechnical or simply busy / task-focused users every day. Please have a look at the comment chain to get context about why I brought this up. The point is that the EU’s guidance around cookie popups is part of the problem today (I know they had good intentions though).
- AshamedCaptain 5y agoThe entire point of the law is to make those websites with unnecessary tracking annoying to use.
- signal11 5y agoThat’s one point of view. The other view is that it has trained ordinary people to unthinkingly just click “accept cookies”. Consent != Informed Consent. The medical community is very well aware of this, it’s time tech realised it as well.
- AshamedCaptain 5y agoYes well that is exactly why they are ensuring the "NO" button is at least as large as the "yes" button. It's still not critical since the point, again, is to make them annoying to use; offering choice is secondary.