4 ms·
You say corporate nightmare but give the example of cookies, and the need to accept or reject those are a result of government regulations.
by SamPatt 3y ago
You say corporate nightmare but give the example of cookies, and the need to accept or reject those are a result of government regulations.
- mostlysimilar 3y agoA fair point, but the government regulation was a response to corporate abuses. There's a discussion to be had about the efficacy of this particular regulation, but zero regulation and letting corporations run free is not a better solution. In an ideal world governments are accountable to a well-educated populace and enact the will of the people to rein in the excesses of the greedy and powerful. Of course that is not how it currently works, but that is the ideal to strive for.
- pcunite 3y agoGOVT vs CORP is the same as left vs right. They are the same. Two wings on the same bird. You are being played.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y agoThis is essentially the correct explanation. Karl Marx showed 150 years ago that a state under capitalism is a capitalist state and therefore predominated by the interests of capital itself, an observation that has never been refuted.
- redeeman 3y agothe capital of its inhabitants.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago?
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago> A fair point Is that sarcasm? It was a terrible point. And any lack of efficacy of said regulation is straightforwardly due to corporate influence on governments.
- mostlysimilar 3y agoIt's a point I disagree with, but it's a fair question to ask. I chose to engage with the statement in good faith and assumed the person just hadn't connected the dots fully. People are more likely to be receptive to changing their views if you first acknowledge where they currently stand.
- hot_gril 3y ago> zero regulation and letting corporations run free is not a better solution I was fine with this solution. Most people don't care this much about privacy, and the govt is already violating it harder than anything else.
- jimcsharp 3y agoThe banner is malicious compliance to exhaust and trick people into giving the same tracking privileges the companies previously assumed they had. Sites are welcome to not have the obtrusive cookie banner if they behave themselves with only relevant cookies. Corporate nightmare.
- ryandrake 3y agoMalicious compliance is the perfect way to describe websites' behavior. Sites have many ways to deal with regulations, but they choose: Punish the user with terrible UX, while crying 'look at what they made me do!'
- hot_gril 3y agoThese banners are on plenty of smaller sites. Seems the law is unclear, so they have to cover their butts. Doesn't help that many top search results for "do I need a cookie popup" say an unqualified "yes."
- unmole 3y ago> The banner is malicious compliance Tell me what the banner on https://gdpr.eu/ https://gdpr.eu/ says.
- OkayPhysicist 3y agoIf you don't unnecessarily track people, you don't need a cookie consent banner.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoHoly koolaid. The annoyance of gdpr consent popups are the result of data collection and malicious compliance, not the regulation that says don't collect data. How come I live under those same regulations yet don't have any such annoying popups on my sites? I thought they were cause by that regulation? Thos awful regulations don't go far enough. GDPR is 1% of the step in the right direction. Any pain is like the first initial pain from poking at a boil. The sane reaction is to lance that fucker with extreme prejudice not friggn back off and let it continue slowly eating you alive.
- o1y32 3y agoLook at github.com. There is no banner. Why? They don't have any tracking cookies and only use cookies for essential functionalities, and as a result they don't need to ask for consent. That's how websites should work.