4 ms·

> Because the vast majority of people would not consent. Many people would click No when asked "Can we track you?". Yet, fewer people would click No when asked

> Because the vast majority of people would not consent. Many people would click No when asked "Can we track you?". Yet, fewer people would click No when asked "Can we show you ads that are closely related to your interests"? Likely even more people would agree with "Are you willing to share some data so we can improve our product?". And maybe most people would actually be ok with websites including Google Fonts [1]. Of course, when too many people agree with the proposition, then the question must be legally mandated to be more scary. The truth is that "people" are fundamentally not on the side of the privacy advocates. This is the whole reason for the GDPR. People are perfectly happy to share their data in exchange for using those services. Fundamentally, GDPR advocates are claiming that people just don't get it, and should not be allowed to make this choice. Which is why websites are not allowed to make their service conditioned on consent to tracking. > So if I have DNT=1 set in my browser, pop a quick non modal notification saying "we wants to track you but but we won't because you said not to. Click here if you want to change that". Solved. This is still an annoying banner somewhere. Please no. [1] https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/31/website_fine_google_fonts_gdpr/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/31/website_fine_google_f...

Semaphor 4y ago
> Which is why websites are not allowed to make their service conditioned on consent to tracking Is that clear yet? Because most bigger newspapers in Germany do exactly that, try Spiegel.de
- hnbad 4y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if German data protection agencies give news "publishers" more leeway given that they seem to be extremely influential in other domains of digital law in Germany. But yeah, it's debatable whether "my business model depends on showing you ads from services that harvest your data via those ads" is a legitimate interest. If it is, that sets a bad precedent IMO.
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    FWIW, many of the data protection agencies are nowhere near as corrupt as other places. But those things tend to require court decisions.
BiteCode_dev 4y ago
"can we track you" is not a scary proposition, this is the only objective fact. "Can we show you ads that are closely related to your interests" and "Are you willing to share some data so we can improve our product?" are not facts, they are excuses like "fight terrorist" and "protect the children". And not as good, because nobody would object protecting children while some people do for the former. The reality is rather "can we get enough data so we can manipulate you better in order to make more money?", "can we create a knowledge graph powerful enough to kill all our competition and influence democracy in our favor?" and "can we follow you everywhere to prey on you once we know enough to find a way in your life?" You think those sentences don't reflect reality? I think they are as realistic as yours. So the law finds a middle ground and use facts: "do you accept tracking?". Simple. Objective. > This is still an annoying banner somewhere. A non modal notification, just like stated in the original comment, is not a banner. It can be safely ignored, doesn't prevent you from getting to the content, nor require you to act or take a decision to progress. I mean, you just stated that tons of people are ready to accept obnoxious interruptions in the form of ads that benefit corporations, and you think a small notification on the bottom right on the screen to benefit the consumer is unacceptable? I'm answering your comment for the sake of other readers, but given how much bad faith I felt in it, I'm expecting any answer would be of the same caliber and will just ignore them.
- miracle2k 4y ago
  > The reality is rather "can we get enough data so we can manipulate you better in order to make more money?", "can we create a knowledge graph powerful enough to kill all our competition and influence democracy in our favor?" and "can we follow you everywhere to prey on you once we know enough to find a way in your life?" Sometimes people just want to know which buttons users click because, yes, (gasp) it helps their business (the one that is employing people). > I mean, you just stated that tons of people are ready to accept obnoxious interruptions in the form of ads that benefit corporations, There aren't any fewer ads. We now have the same amount of ads + 3 privacy popups on every page you visit. I don't want any popups. EU regulation / the GDPR is clearly to blame for the popup. Supporters have to take responsibility for the internet experience they have wrought. Complaining about "bad actors" is an excuse. This is our reality today. It's because of these rules. Own it up.
hedora 4y ago
96% percent of users opted out on iOS. Prompt engineering can only reduce that number so much.

Semaphor 4y ago

> Which is why websites are not allowed to make their service conditioned on consent to tracking Is that clear yet? Because most bigger newspapers in Germany do exactly that, try Spiegel.de

hnbad 4y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if German data protection agencies give news "publishers" more leeway given that they seem to be extremely influential in other domains of digital law in Germany. But yeah, it's debatable whether "my business model depends on showing you ads from services that harvest your data via those ads" is a legitimate interest. If it is, that sets a bad precedent IMO.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  FWIW, many of the data protection agencies are nowhere near as corrupt as other places. But those things tend to require court decisions.

BiteCode_dev 4y ago

"can we track you" is not a scary proposition, this is the only objective fact. "Can we show you ads that are closely related to your interests" and "Are you willing to share some data so we can improve our product?" are not facts, they are excuses like "fight terrorist" and "protect the children". And not as good, because nobody would object protecting children while some people do for the former. The reality is rather "can we get enough data so we can manipulate you better in order to make more money?", "can we create a knowledge graph powerful enough to kill all our competition and influence democracy in our favor?" and "can we follow you everywhere to prey on you once we know enough to find a way in your life?" You think those sentences don't reflect reality? I think they are as realistic as yours. So the law finds a middle ground and use facts: "do you accept tracking?". Simple. Objective. > This is still an annoying banner somewhere. A non modal notification, just like stated in the original comment, is not a banner. It can be safely ignored, doesn't prevent you from getting to the content, nor require you to act or take a decision to progress. I mean, you just stated that tons of people are ready to accept obnoxious interruptions in the form of ads that benefit corporations, and you think a small notification on the bottom right on the screen to benefit the consumer is unacceptable? I'm answering your comment for the sake of other readers, but given how much bad faith I felt in it, I'm expecting any answer would be of the same caliber and will just ignore them.

miracle2k 4y ago
> The reality is rather "can we get enough data so we can manipulate you better in order to make more money?", "can we create a knowledge graph powerful enough to kill all our competition and influence democracy in our favor?" and "can we follow you everywhere to prey on you once we know enough to find a way in your life?" Sometimes people just want to know which buttons users click because, yes, (gasp) it helps their business (the one that is employing people). > I mean, you just stated that tons of people are ready to accept obnoxious interruptions in the form of ads that benefit corporations, There aren't any fewer ads. We now have the same amount of ads + 3 privacy popups on every page you visit. I don't want any popups. EU regulation / the GDPR is clearly to blame for the popup. Supporters have to take responsibility for the internet experience they have wrought. Complaining about "bad actors" is an excuse. This is our reality today. It's because of these rules. Own it up.

hedora 4y ago

96% percent of users opted out on iOS. Prompt engineering can only reduce that number so much.