5 ms·

I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up like prop 65 cancer warnings, or cookie banners. The intention might be to separate believable but low quality hallucina

I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up like prop 65 cancer warnings, or cookie banners. The intention might be to separate believable but low quality hallucinated AI content spam from high quality manual content. But it will backfire like prop 65. You'll see notices everywhere because increasingly AI will be used in all parts of the content creation pipeline. I see YouTube's own guidelines in the article and they seem reasonable. But I think over time the line will move, be unclear and we'll end up like prop 65 anyways.

bombcar 3y ago
This is exactly what will happen, just like with cookie warnings, etc. To be effective, warnings like this have to be MANDATED on the item in question, and FORBIDDEN when not present. Otherwise you stick a prop 65 "may contain" warning on everything, and it's pointless. (This post may have been generated by AI; this notice in compliance with AI notification complications.)
- Jensson 3y ago
  The "sponsored content" tag on youtube seems to work very well though. Most content creators don't want to label their videos sponsored unless they are, I assume the same goes for AI generated content flags. Why would a manual content creator want to add that? > This post may have been generated by AI I doubt "may" is enough.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - nemomarx 3y ago
    I think the concern is people might use the label out of caution if Adobe has some automatic AI enhancement in your video editor or whatever?
    - wongarsu 3y ago
      That would be either poor understanding or poor enforcement of the rule, since they specifically list stuff special effects, beauty filters etc as allowed. A more plausible scenario would be if you aren't sure if all your stock footage is real. Though with youtube creators being one of the biggest groups of customers for stock footage I expect most providers will put very clear labeling in place.
  - ehsankia 3y ago
    That's a much clearer line though, it's much simpler to know if you were paid to create this content or not. Use of AI isn't, especially if it's deep in some tool you used. Does blurring part of the image with Photoshop count? What if Photoshop used AI behind the scene for whatever filter you applied? What about some video editor feature that helps with audio/video synchronization or background removal?
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      Maybe this could motivate toolmakers to label their own products as “Uses AI” or “AI Free” allowing content creators verify their entire toolchain to be AI Free. As opposed to today, where companies are doing everything they can, stretching the truth, just so they can market their tools as “Using AI.”
      - huhlig 3y ago
        Where do you draw the line on things like Photoshop or Premier where AI suffuses the entire product. Not everything AI is generative AI.
        munk-a 3y ago
        You can't use them - other tools that match most of the functionality without including AI tools will emerge and take over the market if this is an important thing to people... alternatively Adobe wises up and rolls back AI stuff or isolates it into consumer-level only things that mark images as tainted.
        ryandrake 3y ago
        This is a great point and I don’t know. We are entering a strange and seemingly totally untrustworthy world. I wouldn’t want to have to litigate all this.
      - xp84 3y ago
        This is depressing, we’re going to intentionally use worse tools to avoid some idiotic scare label. Basically the entire GMO or “artificial flavor” debates all over again. If you edit this image by hand you’re good, but if you use a tool that “uses AI” to do it, you need to put the scare label on. Even if pixel-for-pixel both methods output the identical image! Just as a GMO/not GMO has no correlation to harmful compounds being in the food, and artificial flavors are generally more pure than those extracted from some wacky and more expensive means from a “natural” item.
  - tehwebguy 3y ago
    The "Sponsored Content" tag on a channel should link to a video of face / voice of the channel talking about what sponsored content means in a way that's FTC compliant.
- bgirard 3y ago
  > To be effective, warnings like this have to be MANDATED on the item in question, and FORBIDDEN when not present. I think for it to be effective you'd have to require them to provide an itemized list of WHAT is AI generated. Otherwise what if a content creator has a GenAI logo or feature that's in every video and put a lazy disclaimer. > (This post may have been generated by AI; this notice in compliance with AI notification complications.) :D
  - wolpoli 3y ago
    Yes, AI could have been used anywhere in the production pipeline: AI could be in the script, could be used in the stock photo or video, and more.
    - BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
      The same is true for an asset's licensing/royalty-free status, which creators are surely aware of when pulling these things in.
  - nomel 3y ago
    For something like YouTube, you could have the video's progress bar be a different color for the AI sections. Maybe three: real, unknown, AI. Without an "unknown" type tag, you wouldn't be able to safely use clips.
- schoen 3y ago
  The Prop 65 warnings are probably unhelpful even when accurate because they don't show anything about the level of risk or how typical or atypical it is for a given context. (I'm thinking especially about warnings on buildings more than on food products, although the same problem exists to some degree for food.) It's very possible that Prop 65 has motivated some businesses to avoid using toxic chemicals, but it doesn't often help individuals make effective health decisions.
  - dawnerd 3y ago
    Prop 65 is also way too broad. It needs to be specific about what carcinogens you’re being exposed to and not just “it’s a parking garage and this is our legally mandated sign”
    - inferiorhuman 3y ago
      As of 2016 companies are required to list the specific chemical and how to avoid or minimize exposure.
      - xp84 3y ago
        Seems to still be pretty pointless considering that roads and parking lots and garages are all to be avoided if you want to avoid exposure… just stay away from any of those
        inferiorhuman 3y ago
        It's great for things you wouldn't expect. Like mercury in fish, or lead and BPA in plastic.
      - dawnerd 3y ago
        I have yet to see any of that in practice. Guessing no one is enforcing it.
        inferiorhuman 3y ago
- aeternum 3y ago
  How much AI is enough to warrant it though. Like is human motion-capture based content AI or human? How about automatic touchup makeup? At what point does touch-up become face swap?
- jcalx 3y ago
  This will make AI the new sesame allergen [1] — if you aren't 100% certain every asset you use isn't AI-generated, then it makes sense to stick some AI-generated content in and label the video accordingly, out of compliance. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/08/30/1196640997/a-sesame-allergy-law-has-made-it-harder-to-avoid-the-seed-heres-why https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/08/30/1196640...
  - xp84 3y ago
    Wow. This is an awesome education on why you can’t just regulate the world into what you want it to be without regard to feasibility. I’m sure the few who are allergic are mad, but it would also be messed up to just ban all “allergens” across the board - which is the only effective and fair way to guarantee that this approach couldn’t ever be used to comply with these laws. There isn’t much out there that somebody isn’t allergic to or intolerant of.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      >would also be messed up to just ban all “allergens” across the board - Lol, this sounds like one of those fabels where an idiot king bans all allergens then a week later everyone is starving to death in the kingdom because it turns out that in a large enough population there will be enough different allergies that everything gets banned.
- aspyct 3y ago
  Disagree. I will proudly write that my work is AI free.
- winter_blue 3y ago
  I’ve found Prop 65 warnings to be useful. They’re not pervasively everywhere; but when I see a Prop 65 warning, I consciously try to pick a product without it.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  > To be effective, warnings like this have to be MANDATED on the item in question, and FORBIDDEN when not present. That already happens for foods. The solution for suppliers is to intentionally add small quantities of allergens (sesame). [1] By having that as an actual ingredient, manufacturers don't have to worry about whether or not there is cross contamination while processing. [1] https://www.medpagetoday.com/allergyimmunology/allergy/106521 https://www.medpagetoday.com/allergyimmunology/allergy/10652...
- tehwebguy 3y ago
  I think the opposite will happen, non-AI content will be "certified organic"
aodonnell2536 3y ago
This may be a good thing, as it could teach the public some skills for identifying whether or not content has been AI generated. Eventually, it may be completely indiscernible, but we aren’t there yet
- yaomingite 3y ago
  AI can already create photo-realistic images, and the old "look at the hands" rule doesn't really work on images generated with modern models. There may be a few tells still, but those won't last long, and the moment someone can find a new pattern you can make that a negative prompt for new images to avoid repeating the same mistake. I think we are already there, and it seems like we aren't because many people are using free low-quality models with a low number of steps because its more accessible.
samstave 3y ago
Or such construction/arch things such as "TITLE N" compliance... For any physical build there are typ "TITLE 25" such disclosurs that are required for any new-build plans... Maybe we have TITLE N as designed by AI discolsures that will be needed...
lp0_on_fire 3y ago
Am I the only one who is bothered by calling this phenomenon "hallucinating"? It's marketing-speak and corporate buzzwords to cover for the fact that their LLMs often produced wrong information because they aren't capable of understanding your request, nuance, or the training data it used is wrong, or the model just plain sucks. Would we tolerate such doublespeak it were anything else? "Well, you ordered a side of fries with your burger but because our wait staff made a mistake...sorry, hallucinated, they brought you a peanut butter sandwich that's growing mold instead." It gets more concerning when the stakes are raised. When LLMs (inevitably) start getting used in more important contexts, like healthcare. "I know your file says you're allergic to penicillin and you repeated when talking to our ai-doctor but it hallucinated that you weren't."
- samatman 3y ago
  You're not the only one. I will continue to fight the losing battle for "confabulation" for as long as the problem remains current.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- altairprime 3y ago
  Human beings regularly hallucinate details that aren’t real when asked to provide their memories of an event, and often don’t realize they’re doing it at all. So whole AI definitely is lacking in the “can assess fact versus fiction” department, that’s an overlapping problem with “invents things that aren’t actually real”. It can, today, hallucinate accurate and inaccurate information, but it can’t determine validity at all, so it’s sometimes wrong even when not hallucinating.
- IshKebab 3y ago
  Nonsense. It isn't marketing speak to cover for anything. It's a pretty good description of what is happening. The reason models hallucinate is because we train them to produce linguistically plausible output, which usually overlaps well with factually correct output (because it wouldn't be plausible to say e.g. "Barack Obama is white"). But when there isn't much data to show that something that is totally made up is implausible then there's no penalty to the model for it. It's nothing to do with not being able to understand your request, and it's rarely because the training data is wrong.
makeitdouble 3y ago
You put prop 65 as backfiring, but it looks to me like the original intent was reducing toxic products in tap water for instance and it largely achieved that goal. From there warnings proliferated on so many more products, but getting told that chocolate bars can cause cancer is still a reasonable tradeoff. Especially as nothing is stopping the law from getting tweaked from there. Comparing it to prop 65 or GDPR makes it look like a probably deeply effective, yes slightly annoying rule...I sure hope that's what we end up with.
Aerroon 3y ago
I think the main way where the line will move is what is considered "realistic" and what is "animation". A lot of early stable diffusion seemed "realistic" but comparing them to newer stuff makes them stand out at obviously AI generated and unrealistic.
aiauthoritydev2 3y ago
Yes. Nearly all EU regulations are going to end up like that. Over-regulate and people develop blindness to regulations. Our best hope right now is that EU becomes more and more irrelevant as the gap between US and EU grows to the point American companies can simply bankroll the EU leaders.
- damiankennedy 3y ago
  Meanwhile, United orders more from Airbus.
JohnFen 3y ago
> You'll see notices everywhere because increasingly AI will be used in all parts of the content creation pipeline. Which would be OK with me, personally. Right now, those cookie banners do serve a valuable function for me -- when I see them, I know to treat the site with caution and skepticism. If AI warnings end up similar, they too will serve a similar purpose. It's all better than nothing.
- TurningCanadian 3y ago
  I like sites whose cookie banner gives options instead of only having "Accept All". It makes you feel more respected as a user.
renegade-otter 3y ago
Cookie banners are not required even by EU laws. It's a stupid trend everyone is copying.
- hnbad 3y ago
  That's technically correct but not entirely true. The ePrivacy directive and GDPR don't literally require cookie banners but the former requires disclosure of specific information and the latter requires consent for most forms of data collection and processing. Even the 2002 directive actually require an option to refuse cookies which many cookie banners still fail to implement properly post-GDPR. The problem is that most websites want to start collecting, tracking and processing data that requires consent before any interaction takes place that would allow for a contextual opt-in. This means they have to get that consent somehow and the "cookie banner" or consent dialog serves that purpose. Of course many (especially American) implementations get this hilariously wrong by a) collecting and processing data even before consent is established, b) not making opt-out as trivial as opt-in despite the ePrivacy directive explicitly requiring this (e.g. hiding "refuse" behind a "more info" button or not giving it the same weight as "accept all"), c) not actually specifying the details on what data is collected etc to the level required by the directive, d) not providing any way to revise/change the selections (especially withdrawing consent previously given) and e) trying to trick users with a manual opt-out checkbox per advertiser/service labeled "legitimate interest" which is an alternative to consent and thus is not something you can opt out of because it does not require consent (but of course in these cases the use never actually qualifies as "legitimate interest" to begin with and the opt-out is a poorly constructed CYA). In a different world, consent dialogs could work entirely like mobile app permissions: if you haven't given consent for something you'll be prompted when it becomes relevant. But apparently most sites bank on users pressing "accept all" to get rid of the annoying banner - although of course legally they probably don't even have data to determine if this gamble works for them because most analytics requires consent (i.e. your analytics will show a near 100% acceptance rate because you only see the data of users who opted into analytics and they likely just pressed "accept all").
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dang 3y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39747906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39747906.

bombcar 3y ago

This is exactly what will happen, just like with cookie warnings, etc. To be effective, warnings like this have to be MANDATED on the item in question, and FORBIDDEN when not present. Otherwise you stick a prop 65 "may contain" warning on everything, and it's pointless. (This post may have been generated by AI; this notice in compliance with AI notification complications.)

Jensson 3y ago
The "sponsored content" tag on youtube seems to work very well though. Most content creators don't want to label their videos sponsored unless they are, I assume the same goes for AI generated content flags. Why would a manual content creator want to add that? > This post may have been generated by AI I doubt "may" is enough.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nemomarx 3y ago
  I think the concern is people might use the label out of caution if Adobe has some automatic AI enhancement in your video editor or whatever?
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    That would be either poor understanding or poor enforcement of the rule, since they specifically list stuff special effects, beauty filters etc as allowed. A more plausible scenario would be if you aren't sure if all your stock footage is real. Though with youtube creators being one of the biggest groups of customers for stock footage I expect most providers will put very clear labeling in place.
- ehsankia 3y ago
  That's a much clearer line though, it's much simpler to know if you were paid to create this content or not. Use of AI isn't, especially if it's deep in some tool you used. Does blurring part of the image with Photoshop count? What if Photoshop used AI behind the scene for whatever filter you applied? What about some video editor feature that helps with audio/video synchronization or background removal?
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Maybe this could motivate toolmakers to label their own products as “Uses AI” or “AI Free” allowing content creators verify their entire toolchain to be AI Free. As opposed to today, where companies are doing everything they can, stretching the truth, just so they can market their tools as “Using AI.”
    - huhlig 3y ago
      Where do you draw the line on things like Photoshop or Premier where AI suffuses the entire product. Not everything AI is generative AI.
      - munk-a 3y ago
        You can't use them - other tools that match most of the functionality without including AI tools will emerge and take over the market if this is an important thing to people... alternatively Adobe wises up and rolls back AI stuff or isolates it into consumer-level only things that mark images as tainted.
      - ryandrake 3y ago
        This is a great point and I don’t know. We are entering a strange and seemingly totally untrustworthy world. I wouldn’t want to have to litigate all this.
    - xp84 3y ago
      This is depressing, we’re going to intentionally use worse tools to avoid some idiotic scare label. Basically the entire GMO or “artificial flavor” debates all over again. If you edit this image by hand you’re good, but if you use a tool that “uses AI” to do it, you need to put the scare label on. Even if pixel-for-pixel both methods output the identical image! Just as a GMO/not GMO has no correlation to harmful compounds being in the food, and artificial flavors are generally more pure than those extracted from some wacky and more expensive means from a “natural” item.
- tehwebguy 3y ago
  The "Sponsored Content" tag on a channel should link to a video of face / voice of the channel talking about what sponsored content means in a way that's FTC compliant.
bgirard 3y ago
> To be effective, warnings like this have to be MANDATED on the item in question, and FORBIDDEN when not present. I think for it to be effective you'd have to require them to provide an itemized list of WHAT is AI generated. Otherwise what if a content creator has a GenAI logo or feature that's in every video and put a lazy disclaimer. > (This post may have been generated by AI; this notice in compliance with AI notification complications.) :D
- wolpoli 3y ago
  Yes, AI could have been used anywhere in the production pipeline: AI could be in the script, could be used in the stock photo or video, and more.
  - BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
    The same is true for an asset's licensing/royalty-free status, which creators are surely aware of when pulling these things in.
- nomel 3y ago
  For something like YouTube, you could have the video's progress bar be a different color for the AI sections. Maybe three: real, unknown, AI. Without an "unknown" type tag, you wouldn't be able to safely use clips.
schoen 3y ago
The Prop 65 warnings are probably unhelpful even when accurate because they don't show anything about the level of risk or how typical or atypical it is for a given context. (I'm thinking especially about warnings on buildings more than on food products, although the same problem exists to some degree for food.) It's very possible that Prop 65 has motivated some businesses to avoid using toxic chemicals, but it doesn't often help individuals make effective health decisions.
- dawnerd 3y ago
  Prop 65 is also way too broad. It needs to be specific about what carcinogens you’re being exposed to and not just “it’s a parking garage and this is our legally mandated sign”
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    As of 2016 companies are required to list the specific chemical and how to avoid or minimize exposure.
    - xp84 3y ago
      Seems to still be pretty pointless considering that roads and parking lots and garages are all to be avoided if you want to avoid exposure… just stay away from any of those
      - inferiorhuman 3y ago
        It's great for things you wouldn't expect. Like mercury in fish, or lead and BPA in plastic.
    - dawnerd 3y ago
      I have yet to see any of that in practice. Guessing no one is enforcing it.
      - inferiorhuman 3y ago
aeternum 3y ago
How much AI is enough to warrant it though. Like is human motion-capture based content AI or human? How about automatic touchup makeup? At what point does touch-up become face swap?
jcalx 3y ago
This will make AI the new sesame allergen [1] — if you aren't 100% certain every asset you use isn't AI-generated, then it makes sense to stick some AI-generated content in and label the video accordingly, out of compliance. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/08/30/1196640997/a-sesame-allergy-law-has-made-it-harder-to-avoid-the-seed-heres-why https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/08/30/1196640...
- xp84 3y ago
  Wow. This is an awesome education on why you can’t just regulate the world into what you want it to be without regard to feasibility. I’m sure the few who are allergic are mad, but it would also be messed up to just ban all “allergens” across the board - which is the only effective and fair way to guarantee that this approach couldn’t ever be used to comply with these laws. There isn’t much out there that somebody isn’t allergic to or intolerant of.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >would also be messed up to just ban all “allergens” across the board - Lol, this sounds like one of those fabels where an idiot king bans all allergens then a week later everyone is starving to death in the kingdom because it turns out that in a large enough population there will be enough different allergies that everything gets banned.
aspyct 3y ago
Disagree. I will proudly write that my work is AI free.
winter_blue 3y ago
I’ve found Prop 65 warnings to be useful. They’re not pervasively everywhere; but when I see a Prop 65 warning, I consciously try to pick a product without it.
paulddraper 3y ago
> To be effective, warnings like this have to be MANDATED on the item in question, and FORBIDDEN when not present. That already happens for foods. The solution for suppliers is to intentionally add small quantities of allergens (sesame). [1] By having that as an actual ingredient, manufacturers don't have to worry about whether or not there is cross contamination while processing. [1] https://www.medpagetoday.com/allergyimmunology/allergy/106521 https://www.medpagetoday.com/allergyimmunology/allergy/10652...
tehwebguy 3y ago
I think the opposite will happen, non-AI content will be "certified organic"

aodonnell2536 3y ago

This may be a good thing, as it could teach the public some skills for identifying whether or not content has been AI generated. Eventually, it may be completely indiscernible, but we aren’t there yet

yaomingite 3y ago
AI can already create photo-realistic images, and the old "look at the hands" rule doesn't really work on images generated with modern models. There may be a few tells still, but those won't last long, and the moment someone can find a new pattern you can make that a negative prompt for new images to avoid repeating the same mistake. I think we are already there, and it seems like we aren't because many people are using free low-quality models with a low number of steps because its more accessible.

samstave 3y ago

Or such construction/arch things such as "TITLE N" compliance... For any physical build there are typ "TITLE 25" such disclosurs that are required for any new-build plans... Maybe we have TITLE N as designed by AI discolsures that will be needed...

lp0_on_fire 3y ago

Am I the only one who is bothered by calling this phenomenon "hallucinating"? It's marketing-speak and corporate buzzwords to cover for the fact that their LLMs often produced wrong information because they aren't capable of understanding your request, nuance, or the training data it used is wrong, or the model just plain sucks. Would we tolerate such doublespeak it were anything else? "Well, you ordered a side of fries with your burger but because our wait staff made a mistake...sorry, hallucinated, they brought you a peanut butter sandwich that's growing mold instead." It gets more concerning when the stakes are raised. When LLMs (inevitably) start getting used in more important contexts, like healthcare. "I know your file says you're allergic to penicillin and you repeated when talking to our ai-doctor but it hallucinated that you weren't."

samatman 3y ago
You're not the only one. I will continue to fight the losing battle for "confabulation" for as long as the problem remains current.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
altairprime 3y ago
Human beings regularly hallucinate details that aren’t real when asked to provide their memories of an event, and often don’t realize they’re doing it at all. So whole AI definitely is lacking in the “can assess fact versus fiction” department, that’s an overlapping problem with “invents things that aren’t actually real”. It can, today, hallucinate accurate and inaccurate information, but it can’t determine validity at all, so it’s sometimes wrong even when not hallucinating.
IshKebab 3y ago
Nonsense. It isn't marketing speak to cover for anything. It's a pretty good description of what is happening. The reason models hallucinate is because we train them to produce linguistically plausible output, which usually overlaps well with factually correct output (because it wouldn't be plausible to say e.g. "Barack Obama is white"). But when there isn't much data to show that something that is totally made up is implausible then there's no penalty to the model for it. It's nothing to do with not being able to understand your request, and it's rarely because the training data is wrong.

makeitdouble 3y ago

You put prop 65 as backfiring, but it looks to me like the original intent was reducing toxic products in tap water for instance and it largely achieved that goal. From there warnings proliferated on so many more products, but getting told that chocolate bars can cause cancer is still a reasonable tradeoff. Especially as nothing is stopping the law from getting tweaked from there. Comparing it to prop 65 or GDPR makes it look like a probably deeply effective, yes slightly annoying rule...I sure hope that's what we end up with.

Aerroon 3y ago

I think the main way where the line will move is what is considered "realistic" and what is "animation". A lot of early stable diffusion seemed "realistic" but comparing them to newer stuff makes them stand out at obviously AI generated and unrealistic.

aiauthoritydev2 3y ago

Yes. Nearly all EU regulations are going to end up like that. Over-regulate and people develop blindness to regulations. Our best hope right now is that EU becomes more and more irrelevant as the gap between US and EU grows to the point American companies can simply bankroll the EU leaders.

damiankennedy 3y ago
Meanwhile, United orders more from Airbus.

JohnFen 3y ago

> You'll see notices everywhere because increasingly AI will be used in all parts of the content creation pipeline. Which would be OK with me, personally. Right now, those cookie banners do serve a valuable function for me -- when I see them, I know to treat the site with caution and skepticism. If AI warnings end up similar, they too will serve a similar purpose. It's all better than nothing.

TurningCanadian 3y ago
I like sites whose cookie banner gives options instead of only having "Accept All". It makes you feel more respected as a user.

renegade-otter 3y ago

Cookie banners are not required even by EU laws. It's a stupid trend everyone is copying.

hnbad 3y ago
That's technically correct but not entirely true. The ePrivacy directive and GDPR don't literally require cookie banners but the former requires disclosure of specific information and the latter requires consent for most forms of data collection and processing. Even the 2002 directive actually require an option to refuse cookies which many cookie banners still fail to implement properly post-GDPR. The problem is that most websites want to start collecting, tracking and processing data that requires consent before any interaction takes place that would allow for a contextual opt-in. This means they have to get that consent somehow and the "cookie banner" or consent dialog serves that purpose. Of course many (especially American) implementations get this hilariously wrong by a) collecting and processing data even before consent is established, b) not making opt-out as trivial as opt-in despite the ePrivacy directive explicitly requiring this (e.g. hiding "refuse" behind a "more info" button or not giving it the same weight as "accept all"), c) not actually specifying the details on what data is collected etc to the level required by the directive, d) not providing any way to revise/change the selections (especially withdrawing consent previously given) and e) trying to trick users with a manual opt-out checkbox per advertiser/service labeled "legitimate interest" which is an alternative to consent and thus is not something you can opt out of because it does not require consent (but of course in these cases the use never actually qualifies as "legitimate interest" to begin with and the opt-out is a poorly constructed CYA). In a different world, consent dialogs could work entirely like mobile app permissions: if you haven't given consent for something you'll be prompted when it becomes relevant. But apparently most sites bank on users pressing "accept all" to get rid of the annoying banner - although of course legally they probably don't even have data to determine if this gamble works for them because most analytics requires consent (i.e. your analytics will show a near 100% acceptance rate because you only see the data of users who opted into analytics and they likely just pressed "accept all").

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dang 3y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39747906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39747906.