3 ms·
So the point of cookie banners is malicious compliance. Annoying banners get people opposed to EU privacy laws, which is the true goal of the banners. When Face
by ocdtrekkie 4y ago
So the point of cookie banners is malicious compliance. Annoying banners get people opposed to EU privacy laws, which is the true goal of the banners. When Facebook blocked news in Australia over a legal dispute, they "accidentally" blocked all sorts of other content. But it wasn't a mistake, it was intended to sabotage the privacy regulations' popularity, so people like you would call for it's removal. Craigslist didn't actually need to close personals when FOSTA was passed, but by doing so, they created a plausible claim for harm caused by a law that regulated them.
When companies overreact to legislation in ways that negatively impact society, stop blaming the law, because that's entirely what the tech companies are trying to do. They're trying to turn you against the very lawmakers who are protecting you from them.
- scarface74 4y agoSo you mean the government passed a law without thinking through the unintended consequences…shocking! And you’re claiming that every website that chose to use cookie banners was doing so for political reasons? Do you think that is the simplest explanation - and not that a bunch of lawmakers were incompetent?
- ocdtrekkie 4y agoIt's not that I think laws were passed incompetently, but that they were watered down to get them passed. We should be hauling executives of Google and Facebook to jail, but we're still at the "make everyone notify users they're being abused" level.
- scarface74 4y agoEither way you cut, the legislation was ineffective and are you also going to haul in every mom and pop WordPress owner? Every blog site? You really want the government policing web content?