4 ms·
That’s an extremely obtuse justification for immoral behavior. Consumers are informed, and they say “no” when given the choice. Respect their “no”. Tracking b
by catiopatio 4y ago
That’s an extremely obtuse justification for immoral behavior.
Consumers are informed, and they say “no” when given the choice. Respect their “no”.
Tracking builds a massive, exploitative, dangerous information asymmetry. You claim the cost to consumers is small; the aggregate cost is very clearly not small.
This should be an existential issue for websites, and it should force the closure of websites that can only exist through exploitative abuse of consumers.
The cookie banners exist because of bad actors on the web who have become too dependent on abusing user’s data. The problem is with them, and their use of dark patterns to purposefully confuse and mislead consumers.
- charcircuit 4y ago>Consumers are informed No, they are not. They have no clue what they are not consenting to. >the aggregate cost is very clearly not small. $0 is small.
- orangecat 4y agoConsumers are informed, and they say “no” when given the choice. That's the point. If your position is that consumers don't want tracking and that it's harmful on balance, then just ban it altogether rather than incentivizing sites to use dark patterns to trick users into "agreeing".
- dmitriid 4y agoGDPR literally bans tracking without informed user consent. Hiding that content behind dark patterns is not providing user with information. But sure. Do tell me how it's the law that is the problem, and not the greedy leeches that present these dark patterns. Don't worry though. A ban on dark patterns isn't far away. Once it's in effect I guess you'll blame the law for something else.