3 ms·
If you're trying to regulate a bunch of bad actors, and you don't anticipate that they will try to game whatever regulations you come up with, you are not doing
by orangecat 3y ago
If you're trying to regulate a bunch of bad actors, and you don't anticipate that they will try to game whatever regulations you come up with, you are not doing your job well.
- account42 3y agoSure they should have and probably did expect that there would be bad actors. But should they have expected that pretty much all businesses and even individuals would rather make their users miserable than give up tracking them? Is people adding cookie banners for their personal blogs because they are that addicted to meaningless analytics something anyone would have expected? Also, a lot of the problems are not bad actors finding ways around the law but straight up violating it. The most prominent example is the consent bannes that try to discourage the deny option in various ways. The lawmakers did anticipate that kind of maliciousness and made sure to disallow it. What is lacking is mostly enforcement, and that is not something the lawmakers control.
- shadowgovt 3y ago> Is people adding cookie banners for their personal blogs because they are that addicted to meaningless analytics something anyone would have expected? Yes, emphatically. It's a one-time change for the admin that allows them to maintain the status quo, and they don't visit the site as often as users do.