5 ms·

No thanks. Stop forcing needless cookies down user’s throats.

notriddle 4y ago
I agree with what you want. The problem is, where I worked, my boss forced us to add a cookie banner even though we do not actually have any tracking cookies at all, and have no plans to add them, because that’s not our business model. It is just a legal CYA, because the business we’re in is highly regulated. It’s the problem with government solutions. Everybody’s so paranoid that they wind up overcorrecting.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  If the law carried penalaties for that, and if browsers supported DNT, what your boss wants wouldn't matter fuck-all.
  - notriddle 4y ago
    If the law carried penalties for having a tracking cookie consent banner and no tracking cookies, then the solution would be to add tracking cookies. :-)
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      My previous comment may have been slightly misaligned, but my point is that if tracking and personalised advertising were prohibited, and user intent via required browser features were legally mandated and binding, the question simply would not exist.
- cuu508 4y ago
  Did you have a "Reject All" button?
xwdv 4y ago
Stop caring. Seriously, no one’s life has been harmed by tracking cookies. The fears are overblown. Plus we can find alternative ways to track people. Aside from that, most people just consent to cookies anyway, and they’re fine.
- anonymousab 4y ago
  Nah. Put a thumb in the eye of the advertising industry at every chance, at every step, and take joy at the occasional sight of their simmering rage boiling to the surface at their annual conferences.
  - 10amxn10 4y ago
    Nope. Most of the services you use are supported by advertising, including this very site. Thankfully these out of touch, delusional opinions are a minority. The objective is to reduce the need for advertising, whenever possible (most of the time, it's not).
    - dns_snek 4y ago
      > Most of the services you use are supported by advertising Advertising (static banners, in-house analytics by different companies) is fine but tracking the entire human population across the entire web and aggregating the data is not. Things might seem stable right now, but do you really trust corporations and governments to keep that data safe in perpetuity and to never use it for nefarious purposes? To give you an example, right now you have the US on backwards path of banning abortions, how would you feel about the government using browsing history and analytics collected by Google and other corporations to track down women who are seeking or thinking about an abortion? Regimes and laws change, data stays forever. > Thankfully these out of touch, delusional opinions are a minority. Considering the progress we're making with EU regulations such as GDPR, you're certainly wrong. People are starting to become more informed with every passing year and are starting to pay more attention. Industry practices are also slowly changing to make it easier to opt-out of intrusive tracking, which is a net win even for those who don't pay much attention to their privacy posture. We're going in the right direction.

I agree with what you want. The problem is, where I worked, my boss forced us to add a cookie banner even though we do not actually have any tracking cookies at all, and have no plans to add them, because that’s not our business model. It is just a legal CYA, because the business we’re in is highly regulated. It’s the problem with government solutions. Everybody’s so paranoid that they wind up overcorrecting.

dredmorbius 4y ago
If the law carried penalaties for that, and if browsers supported DNT, what your boss wants wouldn't matter fuck-all.
- notriddle 4y ago
  If the law carried penalties for having a tracking cookie consent banner and no tracking cookies, then the solution would be to add tracking cookies. :-)
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    My previous comment may have been slightly misaligned, but my point is that if tracking and personalised advertising were prohibited, and user intent via required browser features were legally mandated and binding, the question simply would not exist.
cuu508 4y ago
Did you have a "Reject All" button?

xwdv 4y ago

Stop caring. Seriously, no one’s life has been harmed by tracking cookies. The fears are overblown. Plus we can find alternative ways to track people. Aside from that, most people just consent to cookies anyway, and they’re fine.

anonymousab 4y ago
Nah. Put a thumb in the eye of the advertising industry at every chance, at every step, and take joy at the occasional sight of their simmering rage boiling to the surface at their annual conferences.
- 10amxn10 4y ago
  Nope. Most of the services you use are supported by advertising, including this very site. Thankfully these out of touch, delusional opinions are a minority. The objective is to reduce the need for advertising, whenever possible (most of the time, it's not).
  - dns_snek 4y ago
    > Most of the services you use are supported by advertising Advertising (static banners, in-house analytics by different companies) is fine but tracking the entire human population across the entire web and aggregating the data is not. Things might seem stable right now, but do you really trust corporations and governments to keep that data safe in perpetuity and to never use it for nefarious purposes? To give you an example, right now you have the US on backwards path of banning abortions, how would you feel about the government using browsing history and analytics collected by Google and other corporations to track down women who are seeking or thinking about an abortion? Regimes and laws change, data stays forever. > Thankfully these out of touch, delusional opinions are a minority. Considering the progress we're making with EU regulations such as GDPR, you're certainly wrong. People are starting to become more informed with every passing year and are starting to pay more attention. Industry practices are also slowly changing to make it easier to opt-out of intrusive tracking, which is a net win even for those who don't pay much attention to their privacy posture. We're going in the right direction.