3 ms·
> 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 t
by 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 agoBecause 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 agoDisagreed - 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.