3 ms·
If sites actually obeyed the GDPR (i.e. if national governments actually devoted enough resources to enforcing it) then all those banners would have a "Reject"
by dane-pgp 4y ago
If sites actually obeyed the GDPR (i.e. if national governments actually devoted enough resources to enforcing it) then all those banners would have a "Reject" button that is just as clickable as the "Accept" one.
Hopefully your friends and family haven't become so trained to look for the word "accept" that they will be unable to find the correct button when companies finally start complying. Or better yet, companies will realise that 99% of users click reject, and the tracking data provided by the remaining 1% is not valuable enough to annoy the 99% for.
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago> dane-pgp 4 hours ago | parent | next [–] If sites actually obeyed the GDPR (i.e. if national governments actually devoted enough resources to enforcing it) then all those banners would have a "Reject" button that is just as clickable as the "Accept" one. Yeah, but there isn’t. There is no incentive, or a stick, to make them comply. It’s a dumb regulation. The regulator doesn’t care to enforce and has no resources to enforce. It’s obvious that people who benefit from tracking will do anything to make people click that accept button. It’s obvious that they will also make it as obnoxious as possible to reject. It was clear from the beginning.
- dane-pgp 4y ago> It was clear from the beginning. I don't remember anyone predicting that there would be an industry-wide effort to deliberately not comply with the rules, relying on lax national enforcement, with companies choosing to make their own websites less nice to use just to (successfully) trick people into hating the legislation and not the surveillance practices that the legislation was designed to stop. That's proven to be a great strategy in hindsight, but I think that this Schelling point was only found by accident.