4 ms·
On paper, sure. In practice, it’s a quick path to “yeah whatever I accept all your stuff just show me the damn content I came here for”. The web would be much b
by jakear 5y ago
On paper, sure. In practice, it’s a quick path to “yeah whatever I accept all your stuff just show me the damn content I came here for”. The web would be much better off if the law was implanted with normal consumers and sane defaults in mind.
- munk-a 5y agoI think ideally the web would be much better off if the law was implemented bilaterally with the US so sites had to make a much more important consideration of whether they want to tick off their users or not. It's not like third party cookie usage is required - websites choose what pieces of tech they'll utilize and they have, on the whole, made a choice that is extremely unfriendly to the consumer.
- jakear 5y agoWebsites make the consumer unfriendly choice because it makes them money, the law allows it, and their competitors are already doing it. They’d be fools not to. If the law was instead “no non-essential cookies may be stored when the do not track flag is set”, consumers would be far better off. But that’d cause significant financial impact to the media companies that lobbied for the current wording, so now the whole world is screwed.