3 ms·

Often times idealic and well-intentioned measure have negative consequences. Just look at how the EU's cookie banners have eroded the UX of the open web as an e

Often times idealic and well-intentioned measure have negative consequences. Just look at how the EU's cookie banners have eroded the UX of the open web as an example.

simiones 4y ago
It's not the "EU's cookie banners", it is the advertisers' cookie banners. The EU doesn't mandate cookie banners at all. It's the website's choice whether to pester users about having them accept targetting cookies. The most natural implementation of the EU directive would be to have a place in User Settings where users can go and enable targeted advertising if they want it.
- spideymans 4y ago
  >The most natural implementation of the EU directive would be to have a place in User Settings where users can go and enable targeted advertising if they want it. And why would we assume that these companies would follow the "most natural implementation"? The very predictable response of the industry to the EU directive was to make the cookie banners as annoying as invasive as possible, such that users would consent to tracking out of apathy. No, it's not what the EU intended to happen, but it was a consequence. Which brings me back to my original point: often times idealic and well-intentioned measure have negative consequences. In hindsight, perhaps the EU should've legislated that the UX for the tracking content cannot be unreasonably annoying. I don't know how I'd go about codifying that into law though.
  - JCWasmx86 4y ago
    > I don't know how I'd go about codifying that into law though. Simply make the DNT-Header a legally binding thing. If the user sends it, it means that only technically necessary cookies can be used. This would require no UX from the side of the website, thus defeating all dark patterns at once
    - spideymans 4y ago
      Yup, that would work. I wish the EU had gone with this solution rather than the current regulations. However I can’t help but feel that the “loopholes” in the current regulations were intentional. Politicians have a history of rolling out regulations that have giant loopholes for their corporate friends to exploit.
    - IX-103 4y ago
      "only technically necessary cookies" That doesn't really help preserve privacy. There are so many techniques for tracking, detectable and undetectable.
      - JCWasmx86 4y ago
        I formulated it a bit to informal, I meant, that the website should just don't collect data from me unless it is really needed. (E.g. Tracking identifiers are not needed or collecting fingerprints from WebCanvas and so on)
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    The cookie banners are still a net good: they make bad sites harder to read, turning people away from some of the worst examples. They at least give you some measure of control, or legal standing, or at least visibility into how bad the web actually is.
    - raydev 4y ago
      I don't know how to convey to you that people just accept worse UX until a better alternative is shown to them. Boiled frogs.
  - graftak 4y ago
    The opt-out action has be to be equally easy and discoverable as the opt-in, which is never implemented this way and only just started to get enforced.
- raydev 4y ago
  > It's not the "EU's cookie banners", it is the advertisers' cookie banners It's the EU's cookie banners. Despite the EU's best intentions, the end result is worse. It was a naive move and we're all suffering for it. One of the biggest pieces of evidence that you can't just naively mandate something without also thinking through edge cases and "malicious compliance."

Often times idealic and well-intentioned measure have negative consequences. Just look at how the EU's cookie banners have eroded the UX of the open web as an example.

simiones 4y ago

It's not the "EU's cookie banners", it is the advertisers' cookie banners. The EU doesn't mandate cookie banners at all. It's the website's choice whether to pester users about having them accept targetting cookies. The most natural implementation of the EU directive would be to have a place in User Settings where users can go and enable targeted advertising if they want it.

spideymans 4y ago
>The most natural implementation of the EU directive would be to have a place in User Settings where users can go and enable targeted advertising if they want it. And why would we assume that these companies would follow the "most natural implementation"? The very predictable response of the industry to the EU directive was to make the cookie banners as annoying as invasive as possible, such that users would consent to tracking out of apathy. No, it's not what the EU intended to happen, but it was a consequence. Which brings me back to my original point: often times idealic and well-intentioned measure have negative consequences. In hindsight, perhaps the EU should've legislated that the UX for the tracking content cannot be unreasonably annoying. I don't know how I'd go about codifying that into law though.
- JCWasmx86 4y ago
  > I don't know how I'd go about codifying that into law though. Simply make the DNT-Header a legally binding thing. If the user sends it, it means that only technically necessary cookies can be used. This would require no UX from the side of the website, thus defeating all dark patterns at once
  - spideymans 4y ago
    Yup, that would work. I wish the EU had gone with this solution rather than the current regulations. However I can’t help but feel that the “loopholes” in the current regulations were intentional. Politicians have a history of rolling out regulations that have giant loopholes for their corporate friends to exploit.
  - IX-103 4y ago
    "only technically necessary cookies" That doesn't really help preserve privacy. There are so many techniques for tracking, detectable and undetectable.
    - JCWasmx86 4y ago
      I formulated it a bit to informal, I meant, that the website should just don't collect data from me unless it is really needed. (E.g. Tracking identifiers are not needed or collecting fingerprints from WebCanvas and so on)
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  The cookie banners are still a net good: they make bad sites harder to read, turning people away from some of the worst examples. They at least give you some measure of control, or legal standing, or at least visibility into how bad the web actually is.
  - raydev 4y ago
    I don't know how to convey to you that people just accept worse UX until a better alternative is shown to them. Boiled frogs.
- graftak 4y ago
  The opt-out action has be to be equally easy and discoverable as the opt-in, which is never implemented this way and only just started to get enforced.
raydev 4y ago
> It's not the "EU's cookie banners", it is the advertisers' cookie banners It's the EU's cookie banners. Despite the EU's best intentions, the end result is worse. It was a naive move and we're all suffering for it. One of the biggest pieces of evidence that you can't just naively mandate something without also thinking through edge cases and "malicious compliance."