3 ms·
> How would you frame a "don't track people without consent" without unintended consequences? Drop the consent requirement? I.e. just don't track people. No th
by denton-scratch 3y ago
> How would you frame a "don't track people without consent" without unintended consequences?
Drop the consent requirement? I.e. just don't track people. No third-party cookies, first-party only, and only for the correct operation of the site.
It's not the cookies that people object to, it's the tracking. Tracking provides no benefits to visitors. If there were no tracking risk, there would be no need to require consent.
- caskstrength 3y ago> It's not the cookies that people object to, it's the tracking. Tracking provides no benefits to visitors Sure it does. Visitors get to use all those great sites and apps without paying for the services directly.
- danaris 3y agoThat's not a benefit of the tracking. That's a benefit of the advertising dollars. I have yet to see any kind of meaningful study showing that tracking improves the ROI on advertising by anything remotely resembling enough to justify it.
- account42 3y ago"directly" does the heavy lifting here. Users (on average) still end up paying for the services in the end.
- mercenario 3y ago> Drop the consent requirement? Don't ask users what they want. Let me, denton-scratch, decide for all of them. Wow, what a brilliant idea!