6 ms·

I am very tired of the cookie/tracking popups on many websites that don't have option to "reject all" but just "accept all" and "customise". Main example being

I am very tired of the cookie/tracking popups on many websites that don't have option to "reject all" but just "accept all" and "customise". Main example being Google Search. Looking at this, I am hopeful but not too optimistic.

jsnell 4y ago
From a couple of days ago: https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/new-cookie-choices-in-europe/ https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/new-cooki...
- einszwei 4y ago
  Wow, best UX change from Google in sometime now.
  - hnbad 4y ago
    Don't let the prose fool you. They're doing this because what they did before was in violation and the walls were closing in. This reminds me of supermarkets in Germany loudly announcing that they would abandon plastic bags to save the environment ... a few weeks before legislation came into effect banning them from selling plastic bags. Why wait until you're potentially facing fines if you can move slightly ahead and sell it as a voluntary good thing you do for your users/customers?
    - hiptobecubic 4y ago
      That's basically WAI though. Plastic bags were banned because of the environmental impact. For some particularly naive customers they might think it's a feel-good initiative from a brand they now love a little more, but at the policy level it's really not important how various implementers want to spin it. What's important is that the outcome is a reduction in plastic bag use.
      - hnbad 4y ago
        Oh, I'm not saying any of these are bad. I'm just saying you shouldn't thank Google (or the supermarkets) when they try to spin this as charity. Some people might not want to hear this, but the thing doing this is not corporate volition but regulations.
imiric 4y ago
Exactly. It's rich for the EU to regulate dark patterns when their own laws is the reason they're so rampant on the web today. I guess it's good that they're finally waking up to this, but they're so far behind what's going on in adtech that their actions seem almost intentionally slow. The solutions to this aren't regulatory, but technical first. Monetary fines to tech giants are mere slaps on the wrist. We, and by that I mean the web developer community, need to make technical solutions that make it impossible for companies to infringe users' rights. I guess we should first start by defining what those should be on the web. Those solutions then need to be presented to lawmakers and companies forced to adopt them. This is not rocket science; there are already solutions to these problems that just aren't adopted (e.g. the {ab,un}used Do Not Track header). All this "behave this way or else" regulation is just reactive, and usually takes years to even pass into law, by which point tech giants are way ahead of it anyway.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > It's rich for the EU to regulate dark patterns when their own laws is the reason they're so rampant on the web today. No. The law is not the reason. Companies that knowingly and willingly break it are. Those annoying popups? The vast majority of them are illegal under GDPR, which parasites like IAB are very well aware of: https://www.iccl.ie/news/gdpr-enforcer-rules-that-iab-europes-consent-popups-are-unlawful/ https://www.iccl.ie/news/gdpr-enforcer-rules-that-iab-europe... Edit: changed article URL
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    Without the law they would take your data without telling you.
  - imiric 4y ago
    Cookie consent forms were a response to the "cookie law" passed in 2009[1]. If they're now illegal, that's on the EU for making them vague or not strict enough. But my point is that fighting this with laws is: - too slow, since by the time governments catch up that something should be done, a lot of harm has already been inflicted upon users. And by the time laws do come to pass, tech companies have grown in power and already have alternatives to keep growing. Governments are constantly playing catch up, which was a problem even with Big Tobacco/Pharma, but the speed of innovation of Big Tech is unparalleled. - too ineffective, as breaking these laws is too slow/difficult to prosecute, and even when companies are fined, it's mostly symbolic to even matter. I.e. to them it's just the cost of doing business. [1]: https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/
nottorp 4y ago
> I am very tired of the cookie/tracking popups on many websites that don't have option to "reject all" but just "accept all" and "customise". Main example being Google Search. And The Verge on this very article :)
- andrei_says_ 4y ago
  The people writing the articles are different from the MBAs forcing the financial and technological decisions. “Integrity” has different meanings for each group. For the latter, the meaning is likely closer to “bring in enough revenue to keep the publication running.” Applying dark patterns does not conflict with this.
  - nottorp 4y ago
    Well it's fine with me. I only open Verge links when they're on HN and the title feels interesting. Which is pretty rare.
adam0c 4y ago
use a vpn, any incognito browser, stop using google. simple.
bratwurst3000 4y ago
The « i dont care about coockies » plugin for firefox is superb at geting rid of that problem
- layer8 4y ago
  I wouldn’t count on sites not tracking you until you actually saved your “custom preferences”.
  - alwayslikethis 4y ago
    Of course you can't. My recommendation: 1. Install "I don't care about cookies" 2. Install "Temporary containers" This requires that you use special containers for things you do wish to have cookies for such as HN for the login. Other than that, you can safely click accept for all websites, since it won't persist anyways.
    - imiric 4y ago
      Extensions aren't a reliable solution to privacy and security. Why would you give access to all websites you visit to a 3rd party? I barely trust browser developers these days, let alone some 3rd party developer. And, no, I can't be bothered to review their source code if it's available, or to trust that I'm actually running said code, that it won't become malicious eventually or bother with building it myself. Unless it's run on demand and for a single purpose, I suggest avoiding extensions altogether.
      - alwayslikethis 4y ago
        Containers is a Firefox native feature. The temporary containers extension simply creates and destroys them on demand. I understand the criticism though - increased attack surface. But the Web is pretty much a lost cause anyways. https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope.html https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope....

jsnell 4y ago

From a couple of days ago: https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/new-cookie-choices-in-europe/ https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/new-cooki...

einszwei 4y ago
Wow, best UX change from Google in sometime now.
- hnbad 4y ago
  Don't let the prose fool you. They're doing this because what they did before was in violation and the walls were closing in. This reminds me of supermarkets in Germany loudly announcing that they would abandon plastic bags to save the environment ... a few weeks before legislation came into effect banning them from selling plastic bags. Why wait until you're potentially facing fines if you can move slightly ahead and sell it as a voluntary good thing you do for your users/customers?
  - hiptobecubic 4y ago
    That's basically WAI though. Plastic bags were banned because of the environmental impact. For some particularly naive customers they might think it's a feel-good initiative from a brand they now love a little more, but at the policy level it's really not important how various implementers want to spin it. What's important is that the outcome is a reduction in plastic bag use.
    - hnbad 4y ago
      Oh, I'm not saying any of these are bad. I'm just saying you shouldn't thank Google (or the supermarkets) when they try to spin this as charity. Some people might not want to hear this, but the thing doing this is not corporate volition but regulations.

imiric 4y ago

Exactly. It's rich for the EU to regulate dark patterns when their own laws is the reason they're so rampant on the web today. I guess it's good that they're finally waking up to this, but they're so far behind what's going on in adtech that their actions seem almost intentionally slow. The solutions to this aren't regulatory, but technical first. Monetary fines to tech giants are mere slaps on the wrist. We, and by that I mean the web developer community, need to make technical solutions that make it impossible for companies to infringe users' rights. I guess we should first start by defining what those should be on the web. Those solutions then need to be presented to lawmakers and companies forced to adopt them. This is not rocket science; there are already solutions to these problems that just aren't adopted (e.g. the {ab,un}used Do Not Track header). All this "behave this way or else" regulation is just reactive, and usually takes years to even pass into law, by which point tech giants are way ahead of it anyway.

dmitriid 4y ago
> It's rich for the EU to regulate dark patterns when their own laws is the reason they're so rampant on the web today. No. The law is not the reason. Companies that knowingly and willingly break it are. Those annoying popups? The vast majority of them are illegal under GDPR, which parasites like IAB are very well aware of: https://www.iccl.ie/news/gdpr-enforcer-rules-that-iab-europes-consent-popups-are-unlawful/ https://www.iccl.ie/news/gdpr-enforcer-rules-that-iab-europe... Edit: changed article URL
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Without the law they would take your data without telling you.
- imiric 4y ago
  Cookie consent forms were a response to the "cookie law" passed in 2009[1]. If they're now illegal, that's on the EU for making them vague or not strict enough. But my point is that fighting this with laws is: - too slow, since by the time governments catch up that something should be done, a lot of harm has already been inflicted upon users. And by the time laws do come to pass, tech companies have grown in power and already have alternatives to keep growing. Governments are constantly playing catch up, which was a problem even with Big Tobacco/Pharma, but the speed of innovation of Big Tech is unparalleled. - too ineffective, as breaking these laws is too slow/difficult to prosecute, and even when companies are fined, it's mostly symbolic to even matter. I.e. to them it's just the cost of doing business. [1]: https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ https://gdpr.eu/cookies/

nottorp 4y ago

> I am very tired of the cookie/tracking popups on many websites that don't have option to "reject all" but just "accept all" and "customise". Main example being Google Search. And The Verge on this very article :)

andrei_says_ 4y ago
The people writing the articles are different from the MBAs forcing the financial and technological decisions. “Integrity” has different meanings for each group. For the latter, the meaning is likely closer to “bring in enough revenue to keep the publication running.” Applying dark patterns does not conflict with this.
- nottorp 4y ago
  Well it's fine with me. I only open Verge links when they're on HN and the title feels interesting. Which is pretty rare.

adam0c 4y ago

use a vpn, any incognito browser, stop using google. simple.

bratwurst3000 4y ago

The « i dont care about coockies » plugin for firefox is superb at geting rid of that problem

layer8 4y ago
I wouldn’t count on sites not tracking you until you actually saved your “custom preferences”.
- alwayslikethis 4y ago
  Of course you can't. My recommendation: 1. Install "I don't care about cookies" 2. Install "Temporary containers" This requires that you use special containers for things you do wish to have cookies for such as HN for the login. Other than that, you can safely click accept for all websites, since it won't persist anyways.
  - imiric 4y ago
    Extensions aren't a reliable solution to privacy and security. Why would you give access to all websites you visit to a 3rd party? I barely trust browser developers these days, let alone some 3rd party developer. And, no, I can't be bothered to review their source code if it's available, or to trust that I'm actually running said code, that it won't become malicious eventually or bother with building it myself. Unless it's run on demand and for a single purpose, I suggest avoiding extensions altogether.
    - alwayslikethis 4y ago
      Containers is a Firefox native feature. The temporary containers extension simply creates and destroys them on demand. I understand the criticism though - increased attack surface. But the Web is pretty much a lost cause anyways. https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope.html https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope....