5 ms·

If this happens I will forgive the EU for the cookie modals.

f1refly 4y ago
The EU is innocent, they didn't force anyone to create cookie modals. You need to forgive the digital stalking businesses instead.
- NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
  >* You need to forgive the digital stalking businesses instead.* Do we, though? I use "I don't care about cookies": https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/i-dont-care-about-cookies/fihnjjcciajhdojfnbdddfaoknhalnja?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/i-dont-care-about-... to deal with the mess.
  - 29083011397778 4y ago
    You only need a cookie modal to allow opting out of non-essential cookies though. Needing a cookie to store a login? Fine, no modal needed. Cookies to track you everywhere you go until the end of days? Requires a modal. This, to me, seems fair and reasonable. It's everyone else that botched it by using unnecessary and annoying modals for required cookies.
unity1001 4y ago
The screwed up cookie modals are not Eu's doing: Eu mandated that the users should be clearly told what would be tracked, they should be given an easy way to accept, reject, and choose which of them they accept. The corporations - mainly the US - chose to 'get around' these requirements in the undying US corporate tradition: Make it difficult for the user to reject cookies so they will have to give up and just accept. Most modals have only an 'accept' and 'choose' sections, and the 'choose' section includes a gigantic list of 'vendors' which you have to individually turn off one by one. So that you will give up and just click 'accept'. Some of them offer a 'reject all' button way at the bottom of of the list, after listing 30-40 vendors. So basically its the usual corporate trickery to force user to do things they don't want to. However, this is illegal - Eu works on civil law, and civil law is a clear, well defined legal practice. If it says you have to do some specific thing, there isnt much 'interpret my way around it'. So, per that law, all the cookie modals that do not give the users an EASY way to reject cookies are in violation of that law. It absolutely does not matter zit if the user 'consents' to the terms. Mutual agreements and contract law overriding actual law is a trait of the Anglosaxon common law, not civil law. In civil law, it doesnt matter zit if the other party agreed to something illegal per law. Therefore, not only all these pesky modals that try to force you into accepting those ~80 cookies from a random website you visit are not Eu's doing, but also most of them are actually in violation of the GDPR law.
- irusensei 4y ago
  IMO if it's open to abuse then it wasn't properly designed. And If its being abused even while not open to interpretations then its not enforceable, which also means its a bad design. I feel like people give a pass and even defend it because it had good intentions. Clearly it wasn't well thought and people should criticize it more instead. Bad execution can ruin good ideas. Of course there are other good things on GDPR as a whole but this cookie consent thing was a disaster. I live in the EU but use a VPN routing my connections to a nearby non-eu country to have an overall better browsing experience.
  - troad 4y ago
    > Bad execution can ruin good ideas. There’s no good idea that the EU won’t find some way to execute poorly, alas.
    - unity1001 4y ago
      There are zillions of good ideas that the Eu mandated - ideas which you dont even notice because they became parts of your daily life. They range from the obligation that food producers must have all the ingredients clearly listed in their products to the expiration dates. From no-spam laws to right to repair. What you say just sounds like Daily Mirror grade smear.
      - troad 4y ago
        I grew up in Australia. We somehow mysteriously managed to have expiration dates on food too, despite our distance from Brussels. What developed country doesn’t have expiration dates? The EU is great at taking credit for things it had very little to do with. Sometimes it’s obvious things that happen elsewhere without the EU (expiration dates on food), sometimes it’s the work of other organisations (like NATO). “Oh, there’s peace in Europe? Yeah, the EU did that. Oh, there’s war in Europe? Hmm, more EU should fix that.” > What you say just sounds like Daily Mirror grade smear. I’m a euro-federalist, so I doubt the Daily Mirror would be interested. The EU is a mixed bag and I want it to do better. Reflexively attacking people whose views you know very little about seems unconstructive.

The EU is innocent, they didn't force anyone to create cookie modals. You need to forgive the digital stalking businesses instead.

NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
>* You need to forgive the digital stalking businesses instead.* Do we, though? I use "I don't care about cookies": https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/i-dont-care-about-cookies/fihnjjcciajhdojfnbdddfaoknhalnja?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/i-dont-care-about-... to deal with the mess.
- 29083011397778 4y ago
  You only need a cookie modal to allow opting out of non-essential cookies though. Needing a cookie to store a login? Fine, no modal needed. Cookies to track you everywhere you go until the end of days? Requires a modal. This, to me, seems fair and reasonable. It's everyone else that botched it by using unnecessary and annoying modals for required cookies.

unity1001 4y ago

The screwed up cookie modals are not Eu's doing: Eu mandated that the users should be clearly told what would be tracked, they should be given an easy way to accept, reject, and choose which of them they accept. The corporations - mainly the US - chose to 'get around' these requirements in the undying US corporate tradition: Make it difficult for the user to reject cookies so they will have to give up and just accept. Most modals have only an 'accept' and 'choose' sections, and the 'choose' section includes a gigantic list of 'vendors' which you have to individually turn off one by one. So that you will give up and just click 'accept'. Some of them offer a 'reject all' button way at the bottom of of the list, after listing 30-40 vendors. So basically its the usual corporate trickery to force user to do things they don't want to. However, this is illegal - Eu works on civil law, and civil law is a clear, well defined legal practice. If it says you have to do some specific thing, there isnt much 'interpret my way around it'. So, per that law, all the cookie modals that do not give the users an EASY way to reject cookies are in violation of that law. It absolutely does not matter zit if the user 'consents' to the terms. Mutual agreements and contract law overriding actual law is a trait of the Anglosaxon common law, not civil law. In civil law, it doesnt matter zit if the other party agreed to something illegal per law. Therefore, not only all these pesky modals that try to force you into accepting those ~80 cookies from a random website you visit are not Eu's doing, but also most of them are actually in violation of the GDPR law.

irusensei 4y ago
IMO if it's open to abuse then it wasn't properly designed. And If its being abused even while not open to interpretations then its not enforceable, which also means its a bad design. I feel like people give a pass and even defend it because it had good intentions. Clearly it wasn't well thought and people should criticize it more instead. Bad execution can ruin good ideas. Of course there are other good things on GDPR as a whole but this cookie consent thing was a disaster. I live in the EU but use a VPN routing my connections to a nearby non-eu country to have an overall better browsing experience.
- troad 4y ago
  > Bad execution can ruin good ideas. There’s no good idea that the EU won’t find some way to execute poorly, alas.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    There are zillions of good ideas that the Eu mandated - ideas which you dont even notice because they became parts of your daily life. They range from the obligation that food producers must have all the ingredients clearly listed in their products to the expiration dates. From no-spam laws to right to repair. What you say just sounds like Daily Mirror grade smear.
    - troad 4y ago
      I grew up in Australia. We somehow mysteriously managed to have expiration dates on food too, despite our distance from Brussels. What developed country doesn’t have expiration dates? The EU is great at taking credit for things it had very little to do with. Sometimes it’s obvious things that happen elsewhere without the EU (expiration dates on food), sometimes it’s the work of other organisations (like NATO). “Oh, there’s peace in Europe? Yeah, the EU did that. Oh, there’s war in Europe? Hmm, more EU should fix that.” > What you say just sounds like Daily Mirror grade smear. I’m a euro-federalist, so I doubt the Daily Mirror would be interested. The EU is a mixed bag and I want it to do better. Reflexively attacking people whose views you know very little about seems unconstructive.