30 ms·

I read 90% of the comments on this and everyone seems unanimously onboard with these annoying banners. The claim is they save the web. I can’t be the only one

I read 90% of the comments on this and everyone seems unanimously onboard with these annoying banners. The claim is they save the web. I can’t be the only one that feels these banners are destroying the web experience. There has to be a better way to improve privacy without simultaneously nuking user experience.

willi59549879 4y ago
the banners hinder reading. Mostly i try to ignore the banners and if it is too obtrusive i'll just leave the site again. The banners are a dark pattern.
krfsm 4y ago
Improved privacy without bad UX is super simple: Have privacy by default, and don't use personal information for things which the user hasn't asked for. But the metrics/tracking crowd - especially the ad vendors - hate that, and they are more important to most companies/websites than the users. (It also limits what methods you can use for site improvement, so it's a bit inconvenient for you too.)
Macha 4y ago
I think you're actually running into and mixing up two opposing requirements: 1. Those who support the tracking and see the banners an imposition of the law. They may come across as supporting the banners because they feel companies should be allowed require customers agree to this, though ultimately they'd rather no banners and to just track as done in the wild west days. 2. Those who support the privacy legislation and feel users should be able to prevent tracking and see the banners as dark pattern coercion so companies can claim compliance. They may come across as supporting the banners because of their stance that companies shouldn't track by default, but ultimately they'd rather there are no banners and either: (2a) companies just deal with the resulting non-viability of privacy invading business models (2b) advertising returns to a less privacy invading model as its a zero sum game so if everyone is tracking then you feel you must, but if no one is then advertisers have proven their willingness to accept less invasive models in other fields where more intrusive models are already infeasible (broadcast TV ads aren't yet trying to determine who specifically is watching, the viewability rates of "the side of a bus" must be miniscule compared to web ads, etc.)
npteljes 4y ago
The issue is, you cannot improve privacy, while keeping the ad dollar flowing. And so, websites annoy you to hell with their banners. The way would be to make web advertisement unprofitable, or to outlaw them. As I don't see either happening, what will happen is clear: websites will annoy as long as people don't go away because of it - same with every other power struggle ever.

willi59549879 4y ago

the banners hinder reading. Mostly i try to ignore the banners and if it is too obtrusive i'll just leave the site again. The banners are a dark pattern.

krfsm 4y ago

Improved privacy without bad UX is super simple: Have privacy by default, and don't use personal information for things which the user hasn't asked for. But the metrics/tracking crowd - especially the ad vendors - hate that, and they are more important to most companies/websites than the users. (It also limits what methods you can use for site improvement, so it's a bit inconvenient for you too.)

Macha 4y ago

I think you're actually running into and mixing up two opposing requirements: 1. Those who support the tracking and see the banners an imposition of the law. They may come across as supporting the banners because they feel companies should be allowed require customers agree to this, though ultimately they'd rather no banners and to just track as done in the wild west days. 2. Those who support the privacy legislation and feel users should be able to prevent tracking and see the banners as dark pattern coercion so companies can claim compliance. They may come across as supporting the banners because of their stance that companies shouldn't track by default, but ultimately they'd rather there are no banners and either: (2a) companies just deal with the resulting non-viability of privacy invading business models (2b) advertising returns to a less privacy invading model as its a zero sum game so if everyone is tracking then you feel you must, but if no one is then advertisers have proven their willingness to accept less invasive models in other fields where more intrusive models are already infeasible (broadcast TV ads aren't yet trying to determine who specifically is watching, the viewability rates of "the side of a bus" must be miniscule compared to web ads, etc.)

npteljes 4y ago

The issue is, you cannot improve privacy, while keeping the ad dollar flowing. And so, websites annoy you to hell with their banners. The way would be to make web advertisement unprofitable, or to outlaw them. As I don't see either happening, what will happen is clear: websites will annoy as long as people don't go away because of it - same with every other power struggle ever.