6 ms·

Probably because most of the people would choose 'Reject all' if given the option. The gameplay here is to hide cookie options in submenus that are different on

Probably because most of the people would choose 'Reject all' if given the option. The gameplay here is to hide cookie options in submenus that are different on every webpages so users get annoyed and choose 'Accept all'.

Maxburn 4y ago
I hate these dark patterns so much. I’m all in on the automation to get rid of it.
_v7gu 4y ago
That’s why the relevant legislation usually requires the “Reject all” option to be as accessible as the “Accept all” option. You can complain to tour data protection authority to get these dark patterns removed
- junofan 4y ago
  I’d prefer better rules. As-is, sounds like a scheme to grow some sort of data protection bureaucracy.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    Better rules, such as? I believe the rules we currently have are enough to protect privacy and deal with these kinds of dark patterns. The problem is the non-enforcement of these rules, so much that entire businesses now specialize in producing "consent management platforms" that help break the rules.
Moru 4y ago
Why do so much work to get people to select the wrong thing? That is as illegal in the EU as not getting consent for your cookies. Might as well just skip the cookie consent and just use your tracking cookies.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  it may be illegal but I see it all the time.
- Macha 4y ago
  They want something similar to US style "you can put whatever in the small print" and hope it provides them with some plausible deniability that straight up refusal woulsn't
redbell 4y ago
> so users get annoyed and choose 'Accept all'. This is probably true in most cases, especially for non-techy and/or non-privacy-aware people, which leads to the inevitable question: So, what's the point of having such a law in the first place since 99% of users will choose "Accept All" WITHOUT ever bothering to read the site's policy due to the annoyance caused by the banner?
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Because just banning such predatory practices would be portrayed as "authoritarian", and when the good players remove the tracking and so dont show a banner, and the bad players play games within the new law, the same people who would have called the simple ban "authoritarian" blame the inconvenience on the weakened law to divert attention from the people who try to circumvent it.
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    Disagreed - the practices are banned. Dark-pattern-based implementations are not compliant with the GDPR. The problem is that nobody is actually interested in enforcing it, so non-compliant solutions are allowed to proliferate.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > since 99% of users will choose "Accept All" WITHOUT ever bothering to read the site's policy I block all cookies that aren't from the site I'm visiting. I'm OK with first party session-cookies. It's like this: if you serve me a cookie, and I accept it, then you can check that WITHOUT A POPUP. And if my blocker rejects it, then whether I click "Accept" or "Reject" on your popup isn't going to change the configuration of my blocker. So If I get one of these popups, I click "Accept". Your popup can't override my browser preferences.

Maxburn 4y ago

I hate these dark patterns so much. I’m all in on the automation to get rid of it.

_v7gu 4y ago

That’s why the relevant legislation usually requires the “Reject all” option to be as accessible as the “Accept all” option. You can complain to tour data protection authority to get these dark patterns removed

junofan 4y ago
I’d prefer better rules. As-is, sounds like a scheme to grow some sort of data protection bureaucracy.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Better rules, such as? I believe the rules we currently have are enough to protect privacy and deal with these kinds of dark patterns. The problem is the non-enforcement of these rules, so much that entire businesses now specialize in producing "consent management platforms" that help break the rules.

Moru 4y ago

Why do so much work to get people to select the wrong thing? That is as illegal in the EU as not getting consent for your cookies. Might as well just skip the cookie consent and just use your tracking cookies.

stjohnswarts 4y ago
it may be illegal but I see it all the time.
Macha 4y ago
They want something similar to US style "you can put whatever in the small print" and hope it provides them with some plausible deniability that straight up refusal woulsn't

redbell 4y ago

> so users get annoyed and choose 'Accept all'. This is probably true in most cases, especially for non-techy and/or non-privacy-aware people, which leads to the inevitable question: So, what's the point of having such a law in the first place since 99% of users will choose "Accept All" WITHOUT ever bothering to read the site's policy due to the annoyance caused by the banner?

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Because just banning such predatory practices would be portrayed as "authoritarian", and when the good players remove the tracking and so dont show a banner, and the bad players play games within the new law, the same people who would have called the simple ban "authoritarian" blame the inconvenience on the weakened law to divert attention from the people who try to circumvent it.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Disagreed - the practices are banned. Dark-pattern-based implementations are not compliant with the GDPR. The problem is that nobody is actually interested in enforcing it, so non-compliant solutions are allowed to proliferate.
denton-scratch 4y ago
> since 99% of users will choose "Accept All" WITHOUT ever bothering to read the site's policy I block all cookies that aren't from the site I'm visiting. I'm OK with first party session-cookies. It's like this: if you serve me a cookie, and I accept it, then you can check that WITHOUT A POPUP. And if my blocker rejects it, then whether I click "Accept" or "Reject" on your popup isn't going to change the configuration of my blocker. So If I get one of these popups, I click "Accept". Your popup can't override my browser preferences.