5 ms·
Wow, I got two different cookie consent overlays on android chrome on top of each other. That's a first. They must REALLY care about my privacy.
by aargh_aargh 2y ago
Wow, I got two different cookie consent overlays on android chrome on top of each other. That's a first. They must REALLY care about my privacy.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- gumby 2y agoThey are being super-solicitous: you need to allow the cookie consent dialogue to record your preferences, using a cookie.
- larodi 2y agoHappily reader mode works just fine with this page.
- Traubenfuchs 2y agohttps://archive.is/l68pV https://archive.is/l68pV
- muffles 2y agoAs each year goes by, I get more and more annoyed by the cookie consent pop-ups. Does U.S. law really require cookie pop-ups? And don't most websites store the cookies before consent is given anyways? https://olivergrimsley.com/2022/03/04/please-stop-putting-cookie-pop-ups-on-your-website/ https://olivergrimsley.com/2022/03/04/please-stop-putting-co...
- texuf 2y ago100%. This also bugs me: Why can’t websites set a cookie that stores whether I’ve consented to the cookie pop up? On some sites I have to keep consenting over and over (IKEA comes to mind).
- forgetfulness 2y agoStack Exchange is downright malicious in having you click it on each subdomain. No, I don't care that one user created the Math forum and another created the Sysadmin forum, it's all run by you Jeff, that's who I am engaging when clicking the popup, not MathFan1982
- Sebb767 2y agoThis is mostly malicious compliance - the law does not require these annoying popups, but the websites want them to a) make you dislike the law that prevents them from freely collecting your data and b) wearing you down, so you just accept instead of making the effort to go and deny the data collection. Also, at this point it's probably also a lot of cargo culting.
- kayodelycaon 2y agoIt's mostly ignorance now. Most people don't know the law and don't know how to comply with it. If the popup method hasn't been invalidated by a court, why spend more on time, energy, and risk doing something different?
- burnished 2y agoAbsolutely not. The people implementing know, and the people designing know. This represents intentionality.
- bee_rider 2y agoIs there really much risk in just not tracking by default? I think ignorance is part of it, but also, they don’t actually want to do what users want them do to, which is just not track unless the user goes looking for options that actually require tracking at a technical level.
- kayodelycaon 2y ago> Is there really much risk in just not tracking by default? Let’s see… I can’t even stop Marketing from breaking our site with Google Tag Manager. A significant portion of our sales come from the ability to track users and email them useful product recommendations. We do not sell customer data and try to avoid vendors who do. It’s only used internally.
- dv_dt 2y agoIMHO it’s because they can try to apply a dark pattern to have users accidentally consent to more tracking than they might normally agree to.
- staticautomatic 2y agoHaving a pop up for only cookies is silly, but at least as often they’re used for data processing consent and that makes more sense than putting the consent form on a splash screen or in the body of the page I guess.
- BoxOfRain 2y agoI know this is a pretty unoriginal point, but I wish cookie consent could be a browser setting you set once and never have to deal with again unless you need to change it for a specific site. The nag screens have got to be the worst possible implementation, it's like none of the people who decided this was the way it ought to be done ever heard of alarm fatigue.
- Suppafly 2y agoNo sites want that though because everyone would either check 'no cookies' or 'only necessary cookies' which would ruin their ability to make money off the vast majority of visitors to their sites.
- fukusa 2y agoIsn't this the Do Not Track (DNT) header? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track
- genter 2y agoIt's malicious compliance. Websites are free to simply not track you.
- weberer 2y agoIts also malicious legislation. The EU could have easily wrote a line in the GDPR requiring companies to respect the Do Not Track header. But they chose not to. They also included various loopholes such as "legitimate interest". The legislation was just enough that it looks like they're doing something, without actually hurting the surveillance industry's bottom line too much.
- DaiPlusPlus 2y agoThe DNT header was devalued when Microsoft enabled it by-default in Internet Explorer, because it made it impossible for websites to determine if the DNT header was actually set by user-choice or not: any in-page cookie-consent popup that collected actual consent wouldn't change the DNT header sent by the browser, for example. I honestly don't know if Microsoft in 2011 was doing this for unsurprising business reasons (e.g. as a ploy to hurt Google (AdSense was still all-the-rage), because it's good PR, because they had any genuine concern for their users' privacy, and to do anything to win-back market-share from Chrome and Firefox) - or if it was an intentional move to torpoedo the DNT header by showing how useless it is but only because they implemented it precisely so that it would be useless... but Microsoft wouldn't benefit from user-tracking over the Internet anywhere near as much as Google did/does/would-do.