3 ms·
As great as that is I still don't think it will make me hate them any less which is why I love Firefox for trying to address it at the browser level. As a desi
by dmix 4y ago
As great as that is I still don't think it will make me hate them any less which is why I love Firefox for trying to address it at the browser level.
As a designer I despise mandatory content blocking modals and each one will still have a new design you have to decipher. Maybe if they clarified some design rules (2 or 3 big buttons with clearly defined text in legible colours/fonts etc) then it would be tolerable.
Regardless making it always have Accept/Reject/Custom is a good step forward, even though fingerprinting and browsers like Firefox blocking 3rd party cookies by default pretty much eliminates their utility.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pvorb 4y agoIt should just be a standard browser feature with a JavaScript API. Think of something similar to window.confirm() or a standard based on HTTP headers like Do Not Track. There could then just be a standard setting in the browser preferences and the world could be a better place again ten years from now.
- Symbiote 4y agoNo legal measure prevents your site from seeing the Do Not Track header and automatically rejecting cookies/tracking. I've only seen a handful of sites do this. Developers inclined to respect Do Not Track seem less likely to add tracking anyway, in which case you also don't need the banner.
- phendrenad2 4y agoThere's also nothing stopping a website from showing a cookie banner, getting a user who clicks on "no cookies" and tracking that user anyway. Making the user click a button was always a dumb solution.
- mindslight 4y agoThere's also "nothing" stopping you from taking whatever you want from the grocery store without paying. Sure, shady surveillance-based businesses can still pilfer your information and sell it to illegitimate businesses regardless of the legality. But it being illegal will stop the vast majority of wanting-to-be-legitimate businesses from collecting it, and prevent the largest group of threat actors (insurance/credit/etc) from using it.
- phendrenad2 4y agoWhat does this have to do with DNT vs cookie consent popups?
- mindslight 4y agoIt doesn't have to do with the distinction between DNT and cookie nags. I was responding to this: "There's also nothing stopping a website from showing a cookie banner, getting a user who clicks on "no cookies" and tracking that user anyway". You seemed to be implying that since a website can technically ignore a user's (lack of) consent regardless, that the popups are unnecessary. But legally, the concept of consent is very significant. The popup mechanism itself isn't designed for you. I do agree that honest businesses don't need "consent" nag walls, as nobody actually wants their personal information datamined as a feature. But the actual dynamic is that these businesses are trying to preserve the status quo of user surveillance by obtaining fig-leaf consent. And the "best" way to do this (from their perspective) is an obtrusive nag wall that makes it easier to submit rather than reject (whether by accident or through attrition). So nag walls are just a similar user-hostile solution just like surveillance based advertising itself. And the main way the dynamic of malicious compliance will go away is further enforcement, although I fully support technical solutions that delete nag walls as well.
- Moldoteck 4y agoIn fact yes. But if some dev is treated badly by that website and they know about this, they can direct legislators to that site saying it's illegal. And in this case that website has problems