4 ms·

I’m not sure if this is genuine question or not (and forgive my presumption, if there is any, as I know not everyone is privileged with both a technical and leg

I’m not sure if this is genuine question or not (and forgive my presumption, if there is any, as I know not everyone is privileged with both a technical and legal education), but the reason these kinds of modals exist is because of (1) legal expectations, and (2) the organization’s function as a(n advocacy) publication and a likely desire to collapse two necessary but intrusive elements into a single interruption/intervention.

colechristensen 4y ago
You don’t need cookies or to force someone to decline to sign up for your newsletter to do those things.
- fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
  Again, I don’t want to be presumptuous, but I would encourage you to (1) investigate the privacy laws behind cookie permissions and why consent forms are becoming ubiquitous, and (2) the UIUX logic governing prioritization of interactive elements. “Need” here is overdetermined. From a primordial perspective I suppose you could argue the design “force[s]” users to take certain actions, but it’s not like there isn’t a substantive and more intellectually honest take, which is that the modals are annoying but unextraordinary and in-line with standard legal expectations and design practices.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > but I would encourage you to (1) investigate the privacy laws behind cookie permissions and why consent forms are becoming ubiquitous If you're referring to GDPR and ePrivacy, then there's literally no reason to show that consent form for cookies that are strictly required for the functioning of your site. > and in-line with standard legal expectations and design practices. False on the legal expectation. Sadly true on the design practices.
    - fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
      > If you're referring to GDPR and ePrivacy, then there's literally no reason to show that consent form for cookies that are strictly required for the functioning of your site. This is why I guard against presumption: so I don’t make references to forms of European legislation (GDPR and ePrivacy) as if they are the singular authorities governing internet privacy law, or that legal expectations are formulated exclusively through civil law. You’re out of your depth here.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > This is why I guard against presumption > You’re out of your depth here. Don't be a vague asshole. If you want to talk about real laws, don't make people play guessing games, especially when you're excusing these sites' bad behavior. If you're basing your argument on theoretical laws, then it's not the other person that's out of their depth.
        fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
        Fact of the matter is that the comment we’re both party-to displays some fundamental misunderstandings of the law. You may call it “playing guessing games,” but to those with domain-specific knowledge, glaring errors with respect to fundamental legal concepts are obvious and indicates a lack of expertise (e.g. here, not understanding the consequences of the jurisdiction of their named laws to the soundness of their argument) and a possible violation of the law (though the present situation does not rise to that level). Calling out false expertise is part of the self-regulating nature of the professions, even if doing so can be reasonably called “be[ing] a… asshole.” I think it’s worse to mislead people.
        dmitriid 4y ago
        Demagoguery. There are no "fundamental legal concepts are obvious" that require a cookie pop-up. > not understanding the consequences of the jurisdiction It was your third chance to name which particular laws and jurisdictions you allude to. And it was the third time you didn't take it. So, I presume, you have no idea what you're talking about. > I think it’s worse to mislead people. That's exactly what you're doing.

colechristensen 4y ago

You don’t need cookies or to force someone to decline to sign up for your newsletter to do those things.

fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
Again, I don’t want to be presumptuous, but I would encourage you to (1) investigate the privacy laws behind cookie permissions and why consent forms are becoming ubiquitous, and (2) the UIUX logic governing prioritization of interactive elements. “Need” here is overdetermined. From a primordial perspective I suppose you could argue the design “force[s]” users to take certain actions, but it’s not like there isn’t a substantive and more intellectually honest take, which is that the modals are annoying but unextraordinary and in-line with standard legal expectations and design practices.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > but I would encourage you to (1) investigate the privacy laws behind cookie permissions and why consent forms are becoming ubiquitous If you're referring to GDPR and ePrivacy, then there's literally no reason to show that consent form for cookies that are strictly required for the functioning of your site. > and in-line with standard legal expectations and design practices. False on the legal expectation. Sadly true on the design practices.
  - fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
    > If you're referring to GDPR and ePrivacy, then there's literally no reason to show that consent form for cookies that are strictly required for the functioning of your site. This is why I guard against presumption: so I don’t make references to forms of European legislation (GDPR and ePrivacy) as if they are the singular authorities governing internet privacy law, or that legal expectations are formulated exclusively through civil law. You’re out of your depth here.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      > This is why I guard against presumption > You’re out of your depth here. Don't be a vague asshole. If you want to talk about real laws, don't make people play guessing games, especially when you're excusing these sites' bad behavior. If you're basing your argument on theoretical laws, then it's not the other person that's out of their depth.
      - fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
        Fact of the matter is that the comment we’re both party-to displays some fundamental misunderstandings of the law. You may call it “playing guessing games,” but to those with domain-specific knowledge, glaring errors with respect to fundamental legal concepts are obvious and indicates a lack of expertise (e.g. here, not understanding the consequences of the jurisdiction of their named laws to the soundness of their argument) and a possible violation of the law (though the present situation does not rise to that level). Calling out false expertise is part of the self-regulating nature of the professions, even if doing so can be reasonably called “be[ing] a… asshole.” I think it’s worse to mislead people.
        dmitriid 4y ago
        Demagoguery. There are no "fundamental legal concepts are obvious" that require a cookie pop-up. > not understanding the consequences of the jurisdiction It was your third chance to name which particular laws and jurisdictions you allude to. And it was the third time you didn't take it. So, I presume, you have no idea what you're talking about. > I think it’s worse to mislead people. That's exactly what you're doing.