4 ms·

The cookie law never required a prompt for cookies necessary for the website to function. Ie session cookies are fine. What does require consent is advertising

• jimmaswell 4y ago
  Paying the bills is necessary for a website to function, but nobody seems to care about that.
  • lupire 4y ago
    Advertising doesn't require cookies. Transactions (for data) require consent.
  • MathMonkeyMan 4y ago
    Ask for money and see what happens. Maybe go into another business.
    • jimmaswell 4y ago
      We had a great thing going when websites ran on tracking. Nobody was actually harmed in any tangible way. Now every news site wants me to pay $20/month to read it.
      • yardstick 4y ago
        You can still run ads on your site without requiring user consent. It’s the personalisation of those ads that requires consent. TV, Radio, Magazines, Newspapers etc have worked for years just fine with generic, non-personalised ads. Or in the case of cable/sat, non-personalised ads + subscription fees.
        • AlotOfReading 4y ago
          Radio, and print media worked for years, but the Internet absolutely eviscerated their funding models. It's a bit late to imagine closing the Pandora's box of personalized advertising without the mother of all temper tantrums and PR campaigns from the ad industry.
          • salawat 4y ago
            Tantrum away. They have been measured and found wanting.
      • rebuilder 4y ago
        To me it seems that the more the web has become monetised the less useful it has become. Low-effort blogspam that only exists to draw ad revenue increasingly drowns out “real” content. So I’m not so sure we “had a great thing going”. If cookie consent forms reduce privacy violations, lower ad revenue and push these “content creators” off the web, that seems like a win-win to me.
      • lelandbatey 4y ago
        > we had a good thing going when websites ran on tracking Yeah, and you'll be damned if you ever have to adjust how your business works in order to satisfy the desires of customers not to be tracked and monitored. I, and most people, have UNIVERSALLY found that we can just skip paying by skipping reading and lose out on nothing. And now we're not being tracked! Hooray! What's not to love? We can't read as much poorly-written op-eds? I think we'll be fine.
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  • alkonaut 4y ago
    Here’s the kicker: if you need tracking ads to keep the lights on, that’s fine. But that’s a transaction I’m entering into when I visit the site, and I want to see the sticker price. The fact that the law basically says you can’t cookie wall it (I.e accept or leave) just means that you either convince enough people that the price is acceptable, or you get off the internet. It’s not complicated.
    • true_religion 4y ago
      You can’t cookie wall, but can you say accept or pay? If you pay, we would remove all ads including those with tracking cookies …
      • mnw21cam 4y ago
        No, that's illegal too.
      • alkonaut 4y ago
        No you can’t provide a worse service to those that reject. So you show the service, with untracked ads. That’s it. And if that doesn’t pay the bills, then you change business model or shut down shop. It’s not complicated.
        • true_religion 4y ago
          If it’s illegal that explains why everything is moving towards a subscription model. Well, that, and online retailers are realizing that ads don’t have as much effectiveness as they thought so market prices are falling precipitously.
  • blitzar 4y ago
    Dont close your blinds, I need to pay my bills and photographing you through your windows is how I do that. Or do you not care about my children eating?
• alfiedotwtf 4y ago
  Passively rather than actively agreeing (i.e "continuing to use this site means you agree to our terms" vs "click here to agree to our terms" doesn't pass the sniff test when it comes to contract law... at least in my jurisdiction. tl:dr; making the user click "I agree" would work more for you in a court setting