4 ms·

No thanks. Stop normalizing this bullshit. First, every shady website that despite the UX detriments decide that they want to sell their users must publicly st

by tjoff 4y ago

No thanks. Stop normalizing this bullshit. First, every shady website that despite the UX detriments decide that they want to sell their users must publicly state that. That is a feature. I want to know that, I want to see how far in dark patterns they are willing to go to absolutely ruin any trust they imagine they could exploit. Second, while (most of) these popups are illegal it is so abundantly clear what and how they are trying to get away with it. If the "browser" did this for me I wouldn't know what absolute illegal nonsense they would try to sneak in via "legitimate interest". Third, normal decently behaved sites/operators obviously don't have cookie-banners at all. That is also a feature, it is an edge. If you see two sites for X one with a cookie-banner and one without it is clear as day which one you'd close and forget. The times I've backed out of sites because of cookie banners is uncountable. And it is liberating.

divan 4y ago
I believe by "handling at the browser level" people generally mean the option in the Settings that allow autoaccept "necessary" or "all" cookies. If you care, just leave it unchecked.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wewxjfq 4y ago
  There is no such thing as blanket consent and necessary cookies don't require consent.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Watch as magically all cookies become "necessary". Software engineering: the last bastion of legitimacy for people who still seem to have a fundamental issue with the idea of consent.
froh 4y ago
You decline "legitimate interest", too, in your browser presets, of course you do. And if it goes via browser you can deliberately choose advertisers you trust, centrally in one place. Of course I want this in the browser.
- tjoff 4y ago
  No you don't. What site operators try to push as legitimate interest isn't by any definition legitimate interest. To have it set in the browser is quite detrimental to online privacy. Legitimate interest is an attempt to circumvent the law. It is not like your browser is sentient and could recognize that.
  - _kuvn 4y ago
    > No you don't. What site operators try to push as legitimate interest isn't by any definition legitimate interest. In that case, starting to go after big corps that abuse legitimate interest with GDPR fines should sort the problem out pretty quickly
    - tjoff 4y ago
      It is being done, no it isn't quick. Youtube was drastically improved recently (due to fines), for example.
  - alpaca128 4y ago
    This all assumes websites won't just ignore your choices or deceive you either way, which is a real risk whether you do it via browser or not. The only real difference is UX. Users want a "no and never ask me again" button, and that's not possible if every website has to ask you separately. > If the "browser" did this for me I wouldn't know what absolute illegal nonsense they would try to sneak in via "legitimate interest". Of course you would, if it's done properly. The browser would be able to list the cookies too, but in this case in one consistent UI that wasn't built with malicious intent.
    - 4y ago
baisq 4y ago
>Third, normal decently behaved sites/operators obviously don't have cookie-banners at all. That is also a feature, it is an edge. If you see two sites for X one with a cookie-banner and one without it is clear as day which one you'd close and forget. The fact that almost all websites use cookie banners kinda disproves your theory. Website operators need analytics and advertising to do their job and generate revenue. Most media runs at razor thin profits, so building those tools in-house or not using interest-based advertising would make those websites economically not viable. I understand that your argument will be "so close down those websites". But how about you do not visit them instead?
- tjoff 4y ago
  > The fact that almost all websites use cookie banners kinda disproves your theory. Really not true. And it gets better for every year. Analytics and advertising does not need tracking. > I understand that your argument will be "so close down those websites". But how about you do not visit them instead? I try to avoid. I'm not perfect, sometimes I can't be bothered. Cookie-banners helps me decide which sites not to visit and is a constant reminder of what crappy companies still rely on them. It is a feature. And it is pretty damning to see which developers ruins their UX for this. Here is the thing, this has run unchecked for far too long and it takes time to change. Just look in this thread (or any other cookie-related thread on this site or on any site on the internet). People that are supposed to know still are confused and have absolute no idea that cookie-banners is an active choice for site operators. They have/had no incentive to care. Now they do, but they are so deep in denial that it will take years and years for them to even realize that the "cookie-law" was never about cookies or that these banners are an active choice. The default is tracking, for no real reason. Sites that earn on the order of cents absolutely wreak havoc on the internet just because developers are clueless. But the best part is that it gets better for every year. Really, it is so slow so you barely notice but if you you'd take a snapshot today and one from a year ago the difference is stark. Only last month google of all places (because of fines, obviously) changed the youtube banner so that rejecting is the same number of clicks as acceptance. Previously rejecting took five clicks (or was it six?) and some scrolling to be able to perform all those clicks.
iamacyborg 4y ago
> Third, normal decently behaved sites/operators obviously don't have cookie-banners at all. That is also a feature, it is an edge. If you see two sites for X one with a cookie-banner and one without it is clear as day which one you'd close and forget. This is nonsense, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why a site operator may want to use digital analytics, advertising, etc.
- tjoff 4y ago
  Yes, and none of those require tracking.
  - iamacyborg 4y ago
    There are plenty of scenarios where tracking is useful though. For example a product team may want to know how a particular segment of customers use their product vs a different segment.
    - danaris 4y ago
      And (please excuse me if I'm just being dumb this early in the morning) how does tracking their web browsing help with that...?
      - iamacyborg 4y ago
        You'd use something like Pendo, Mixpanel, Heap or whatever as a client-side tracking library for a web application.
        danaris 4y ago
        ...If it's your own web application, then why can't you do server-side tracking? And if it's not your own web application, why should you be allowed to track it?
        4y ago
drdaeman 4y ago
> That is a feature. I want to know that, I want to see how far in dark patterns I get the idea, but is this really what you want, all the time? Maybe you do, but if I'd ask myself the same question - I think I'd disagree. If I want to satisfy my interest in how scummy some website is, I sure can do my research. But typically I just don't care, it's an one-click stay. Some random article or some random website happens to pique my interest, I check it out, and all those banners and stuff are misfeatures because I don't care who runs this website and what they're willing to do to earn some money - not for a split second. All I want is to have what I came for, with the best possible signal-to-noise ratio. So read (or maybe I click the "reader view" if the site is too bad), see if the content that I came for is what I wanted, and close the tab. Maybe the content suggests that the site is really good (happens if I notice I've already seen that site more than once or twice) so I'm enticed to stay - then I'd do my research whenever it's worth to bookmark it or subscribe to something, etc.. But that's rare. This is why I have an ad-blocker - because life is too short to be constantly distracted with all those ads. Even though some can argue they're an indicator of website scumminess. Let me judge that from the actual content, not the paraphernalia around it. And this is the logic why I want to see that utopic world where browsers are back to being user agents, acting on my behalf and my instructions for my personal benefit. Sadly, I doubt this is ever going to be the case. But I do want my browser to automatically act based on the decisions I've informed it about. And I don't particularly mind if it would explicitly ask me to pick "yes or no" on a few questions the very first time I start it, if that's what's needed for the consensus. I think all the noise about DNT from the ad industry was about it having some default setting - okay, if it would ask me "do you want to be tracked? yes/no" (or even "yes/no/it's complicated, show me some advanced settings...") one single time I start the browser - I guess I can live with that, if this would get those banners out and my choice will be properly respected everywhere.
theamk 4y ago
I cannot name a website which has no cookie banner. This is not to say that I have not j such websites, it's just that there is no easy way for me to tell the difference between "I have visited the website long time ago and accepted a banner" vs "I was never presented a banner there". Something browser-based that would show icon in address bar similar to http:// http:// protocl would be far more effective in letting me prefer banner-less websites.

by tjoff 4y ago

divan 4y ago

I believe by "handling at the browser level" people generally mean the option in the Settings that allow autoaccept "necessary" or "all" cookies. If you care, just leave it unchecked.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wewxjfq 4y ago
There is no such thing as blanket consent and necessary cookies don't require consent.
- salawat 4y ago
  Watch as magically all cookies become "necessary". Software engineering: the last bastion of legitimacy for people who still seem to have a fundamental issue with the idea of consent.

froh 4y ago

You decline "legitimate interest", too, in your browser presets, of course you do. And if it goes via browser you can deliberately choose advertisers you trust, centrally in one place. Of course I want this in the browser.

tjoff 4y ago
No you don't. What site operators try to push as legitimate interest isn't by any definition legitimate interest. To have it set in the browser is quite detrimental to online privacy. Legitimate interest is an attempt to circumvent the law. It is not like your browser is sentient and could recognize that.
- _kuvn 4y ago
  > No you don't. What site operators try to push as legitimate interest isn't by any definition legitimate interest. In that case, starting to go after big corps that abuse legitimate interest with GDPR fines should sort the problem out pretty quickly
  - tjoff 4y ago
    It is being done, no it isn't quick. Youtube was drastically improved recently (due to fines), for example.
- alpaca128 4y ago
  This all assumes websites won't just ignore your choices or deceive you either way, which is a real risk whether you do it via browser or not. The only real difference is UX. Users want a "no and never ask me again" button, and that's not possible if every website has to ask you separately. > If the "browser" did this for me I wouldn't know what absolute illegal nonsense they would try to sneak in via "legitimate interest". Of course you would, if it's done properly. The browser would be able to list the cookies too, but in this case in one consistent UI that wasn't built with malicious intent.
  - 4y ago

baisq 4y ago

>Third, normal decently behaved sites/operators obviously don't have cookie-banners at all. That is also a feature, it is an edge. If you see two sites for X one with a cookie-banner and one without it is clear as day which one you'd close and forget. The fact that almost all websites use cookie banners kinda disproves your theory. Website operators need analytics and advertising to do their job and generate revenue. Most media runs at razor thin profits, so building those tools in-house or not using interest-based advertising would make those websites economically not viable. I understand that your argument will be "so close down those websites". But how about you do not visit them instead?

tjoff 4y ago
> The fact that almost all websites use cookie banners kinda disproves your theory. Really not true. And it gets better for every year. Analytics and advertising does not need tracking. > I understand that your argument will be "so close down those websites". But how about you do not visit them instead? I try to avoid. I'm not perfect, sometimes I can't be bothered. Cookie-banners helps me decide which sites not to visit and is a constant reminder of what crappy companies still rely on them. It is a feature. And it is pretty damning to see which developers ruins their UX for this. Here is the thing, this has run unchecked for far too long and it takes time to change. Just look in this thread (or any other cookie-related thread on this site or on any site on the internet). People that are supposed to know still are confused and have absolute no idea that cookie-banners is an active choice for site operators. They have/had no incentive to care. Now they do, but they are so deep in denial that it will take years and years for them to even realize that the "cookie-law" was never about cookies or that these banners are an active choice. The default is tracking, for no real reason. Sites that earn on the order of cents absolutely wreak havoc on the internet just because developers are clueless. But the best part is that it gets better for every year. Really, it is so slow so you barely notice but if you you'd take a snapshot today and one from a year ago the difference is stark. Only last month google of all places (because of fines, obviously) changed the youtube banner so that rejecting is the same number of clicks as acceptance. Previously rejecting took five clicks (or was it six?) and some scrolling to be able to perform all those clicks.

iamacyborg 4y ago

> Third, normal decently behaved sites/operators obviously don't have cookie-banners at all. That is also a feature, it is an edge. If you see two sites for X one with a cookie-banner and one without it is clear as day which one you'd close and forget. This is nonsense, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why a site operator may want to use digital analytics, advertising, etc.

tjoff 4y ago
Yes, and none of those require tracking.
- iamacyborg 4y ago
  There are plenty of scenarios where tracking is useful though. For example a product team may want to know how a particular segment of customers use their product vs a different segment.
  - danaris 4y ago
    And (please excuse me if I'm just being dumb this early in the morning) how does tracking their web browsing help with that...?
    - iamacyborg 4y ago
      You'd use something like Pendo, Mixpanel, Heap or whatever as a client-side tracking library for a web application.
      - danaris 4y ago
        ...If it's your own web application, then why can't you do server-side tracking? And if it's not your own web application, why should you be allowed to track it?
        4y ago

drdaeman 4y ago

> That is a feature. I want to know that, I want to see how far in dark patterns I get the idea, but is this really what you want, all the time? Maybe you do, but if I'd ask myself the same question - I think I'd disagree. If I want to satisfy my interest in how scummy some website is, I sure can do my research. But typically I just don't care, it's an one-click stay. Some random article or some random website happens to pique my interest, I check it out, and all those banners and stuff are misfeatures because I don't care who runs this website and what they're willing to do to earn some money - not for a split second. All I want is to have what I came for, with the best possible signal-to-noise ratio. So read (or maybe I click the "reader view" if the site is too bad), see if the content that I came for is what I wanted, and close the tab. Maybe the content suggests that the site is really good (happens if I notice I've already seen that site more than once or twice) so I'm enticed to stay - then I'd do my research whenever it's worth to bookmark it or subscribe to something, etc.. But that's rare. This is why I have an ad-blocker - because life is too short to be constantly distracted with all those ads. Even though some can argue they're an indicator of website scumminess. Let me judge that from the actual content, not the paraphernalia around it. And this is the logic why I want to see that utopic world where browsers are back to being user agents, acting on my behalf and my instructions for my personal benefit. Sadly, I doubt this is ever going to be the case. But I do want my browser to automatically act based on the decisions I've informed it about. And I don't particularly mind if it would explicitly ask me to pick "yes or no" on a few questions the very first time I start it, if that's what's needed for the consensus. I think all the noise about DNT from the ad industry was about it having some default setting - okay, if it would ask me "do you want to be tracked? yes/no" (or even "yes/no/it's complicated, show me some advanced settings...") one single time I start the browser - I guess I can live with that, if this would get those banners out and my choice will be properly respected everywhere.

theamk 4y ago

I cannot name a website which has no cookie banner. This is not to say that I have not j such websites, it's just that there is no easy way for me to tell the difference between "I have visited the website long time ago and accepted a banner" vs "I was never presented a banner there". Something browser-based that would show icon in address bar similar to http:// http:// protocl would be far more effective in letting me prefer banner-less websites.