4 ms·

I think data collection on the scale of what Meta is doing should just be illegal altogether, or at the very least it should be mandated as opt-in with the opt-

I think data collection on the scale of what Meta is doing should just be illegal altogether, or at the very least it should be mandated as opt-in with the opt-in process being filled with warnings and never being the easiest way to get rid of a banner. It should be hidden away under a menu and there should be no banner at all. The dark patterns used to trick people into opting in need to end. I religiously opt out on every GDPR banner, but even I've accidentally opted in sometimes because the button layout is intentionally designed to be confusing.

rendall 4y ago
If I see a pop-up, especially from "OneTrust", I immediately close the tab and re-open the site in Private/Incognito mode. There are some sites I just reflexively open that way. "Ars Technica" is but one example.
- rrobukef 4y ago
  This includes the permission to link your behavior across "devices"? Iirc, it is quite trivial to link one Private-mode session to another.
  - pacifika 4y ago
    Not without breaking said laws
    - rrobukef 4y ago
      Linking devices is one of the standard permissions normally. So if you give permission in one window and don't say anything in another, it probably counts as permission for both.
      - rendall 4y ago
        I don't give permission even in private mode. If they do it anyway it's on them.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- zelphirkalt 4y ago
  Closing the tab is good, but is it safe to assume, that they wont use fingerprinting, to map your "consent" (more like extortion) to future visits? Also they would still be tracking your incognito browser, if fingerprint is unique?
  - rendall 4y ago
    Maybe they do, but they ask each visit, so these tracking companies at least maintain the illusion that they don't know who I am. Each time I say no.