3 ms·

>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 on

by 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.
- Dudeman112 4y ago
  >Analytics does not need tracking. I want to know if people who consumed X bit of the website also consumed Y. If those are correlated, it's a good idea to give Y-like content to people who like X-like content. If they aren't correlated, it's a huge waste of everyone's time and money. How do you do that without tracking?
  - musicale 4y ago
    How about we don't try to "feed" people more garbage and just make a web site that is well-organized so that people can choose for themselves?
    - Dudeman112 4y ago
      You're taking this as if every business is a huge faceless corporation. If my employer pushed out garbage there's gonna be a real hit to our reputation (we work in a deeply technical sector - the backlash would really hurt the long term profitability). The website itself is well organized. There's good reason to believe that people who want some X info will also be interested into Y info (due to legislation or standards set by the industry or simply because there are domain specific trends). There really is a mutual interest in knowing these correlations. That way some segments won't be pushed useless stuff that they aren't likely to be interested in. They said we wouldn't need tracking. How would we get those info without tracking? No, we are not selling that data to anyone and it could be anonymous for all we care (IMO this is more an issue with the http protocol than anything else, but good luck changing that)
jon-wood 4y ago
> Building those tools in-house or not using interest-based advertising would make those websites economically not viable. Interest-based advertising is a huge con, and in my opinion an egregious waste of energy doing all the data processing, an affront to people’s privacy, and has spent decades now distracting people who could be working on things with actual value. Sure, you can track my every move on the internet and burn vast amounts of energy analysing that data to say “this is someone with disposable income who likes technology”, or you could just… advertise directly on the sites I frequent, and on YouTube channels I watch. The “targeted” ads I’m exposed to are invariably utterly irrelevant to me anyway. I had a recent spate of adverts for head of department teaching jobs in Dubai… I’ve never taught in my life, and I’ve got no idea what got interpreted as wanting to move to the Middle East. I doubt it will happen, but I’d love nothing more than advertisers to stop drinking the kool-aid on targeted ads.
- musicale 4y ago
  > an egregious waste of energy doing all the data processing, an affront to people’s privacy, and has spent decades now distracting people who could be working on things with actual value ^ This, absolutely.
salawat 4y ago
>I understand that your argument will be "so close down those websites". But how about you do not visit them instead? Ah yes, "the leave my money printer alone" defense. Nevermind the exploitive underpinnings and utility through which surveillance capitalism is made possible! Just go over in your corner, and let me exploit the rest of the ignorant rubes. No. Sorry. Absolutely not. Sometimes a foot has to be put down in the name of common decency, and clearing out a behavior that creates even greater problems. This is one of those times.

by baisq 4y ago

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.

Dudeman112 4y ago
>Analytics does not need tracking. I want to know if people who consumed X bit of the website also consumed Y. If those are correlated, it's a good idea to give Y-like content to people who like X-like content. If they aren't correlated, it's a huge waste of everyone's time and money. How do you do that without tracking?
- musicale 4y ago
  How about we don't try to "feed" people more garbage and just make a web site that is well-organized so that people can choose for themselves?
  - Dudeman112 4y ago
    You're taking this as if every business is a huge faceless corporation. If my employer pushed out garbage there's gonna be a real hit to our reputation (we work in a deeply technical sector - the backlash would really hurt the long term profitability). The website itself is well organized. There's good reason to believe that people who want some X info will also be interested into Y info (due to legislation or standards set by the industry or simply because there are domain specific trends). There really is a mutual interest in knowing these correlations. That way some segments won't be pushed useless stuff that they aren't likely to be interested in. They said we wouldn't need tracking. How would we get those info without tracking? No, we are not selling that data to anyone and it could be anonymous for all we care (IMO this is more an issue with the http protocol than anything else, but good luck changing that)

jon-wood 4y ago

> Building those tools in-house or not using interest-based advertising would make those websites economically not viable. Interest-based advertising is a huge con, and in my opinion an egregious waste of energy doing all the data processing, an affront to people’s privacy, and has spent decades now distracting people who could be working on things with actual value. Sure, you can track my every move on the internet and burn vast amounts of energy analysing that data to say “this is someone with disposable income who likes technology”, or you could just… advertise directly on the sites I frequent, and on YouTube channels I watch. The “targeted” ads I’m exposed to are invariably utterly irrelevant to me anyway. I had a recent spate of adverts for head of department teaching jobs in Dubai… I’ve never taught in my life, and I’ve got no idea what got interpreted as wanting to move to the Middle East. I doubt it will happen, but I’d love nothing more than advertisers to stop drinking the kool-aid on targeted ads.

musicale 4y ago
> an egregious waste of energy doing all the data processing, an affront to people’s privacy, and has spent decades now distracting people who could be working on things with actual value ^ This, absolutely.

salawat 4y ago

>I understand that your argument will be "so close down those websites". But how about you do not visit them instead? Ah yes, "the leave my money printer alone" defense. Nevermind the exploitive underpinnings and utility through which surveillance capitalism is made possible! Just go over in your corner, and let me exploit the rest of the ignorant rubes. No. Sorry. Absolutely not. Sometimes a foot has to be put down in the name of common decency, and clearing out a behavior that creates even greater problems. This is one of those times.