3 ms·

GDPR: All websites ask if cookies are ok. If not ok, can't use website. Everyone clicks ok. Amazing work, regulators.

by osigurdson 2y ago

msk-lywenn 2y ago
I always click no and the websites do work. What do you mean?
Sprint9935 2y ago
Everyone doesnt click ok. You can typically use websites if you dont click ok.
- michalstanko 2y ago
  I wonder how many websites show a cookie banner and don't change a thing whether you click Accept or anything else.
  - Macha 2y ago
    The last study I saw was about 15% for ways detectable client side (e.g. loading ad tracking scripts before the banner is interacted with or despite negative interaction). Probably a bit higher when you consider server side tracking and those who make up some not-legally-valid claims of legitimate interests.
marcosdumay 2y ago
> If not ok, can't use website. If you care to read it, you'll find out this is the opposite of what it says.
estebank 2y ago
GDPR is not the ePrivacy directive. The later is the one that resulted in the cookie banners, the former protects the right of Europeans to have their private data remain so.
- troupo 2y ago
  Even with ePrivacy Directive you don't need the dark pattern banners the industry puts up
  - estebank 2y ago
    Correct. The banners started as malicious compliance and then became the "industry norm" so everyone followed through.
btbuilder 2y ago
I always choose the “essential cookies only” option. This is normally harder than accepting all cookies, but it is getting easier over time. I rarely see a site that has essential-only.
- rrr_oh_man 2y ago
  > I rarely see a site that has essential-only. You'd need no cookie banner, then. :-)
zugi 2y ago
What's even more annoying is there were already browser plug-ins, and now there are built-in browser tools, for rejecting cookies or deciding which cookies to store permanently versus which to accept temporarily. GDPR forced a one-size-fits-all solution to a "problem" that was already solved, and got people used to a hostile UI pattern on websites.
- troupo 2y ago
  > GDPR forced a one-size-fits-all solution Can you point me to the exact place in GDPR that talks about browsers and cookies > to a "problem" that was already solved If it was already solved, why did the industry come up with the dark patterns to trick people into blindly agreeing to tracking and blaming the law for that?
jonwinstanley 2y ago
Not everyone clicks ok. Having a choice is better.
- osigurdson 2y ago
  You always have the choice not to use the internet. A far better solution would be to manage this on the client side.

GDPR: All websites ask if cookies are ok. If not ok, can't use website. Everyone clicks ok. Amazing work, regulators.

msk-lywenn 2y ago

I always click no and the websites do work. What do you mean?

Sprint9935 2y ago

Everyone doesnt click ok. You can typically use websites if you dont click ok.

michalstanko 2y ago
I wonder how many websites show a cookie banner and don't change a thing whether you click Accept or anything else.
- Macha 2y ago
  The last study I saw was about 15% for ways detectable client side (e.g. loading ad tracking scripts before the banner is interacted with or despite negative interaction). Probably a bit higher when you consider server side tracking and those who make up some not-legally-valid claims of legitimate interests.

marcosdumay 2y ago

> If not ok, can't use website. If you care to read it, you'll find out this is the opposite of what it says.

estebank 2y ago

GDPR is not the ePrivacy directive. The later is the one that resulted in the cookie banners, the former protects the right of Europeans to have their private data remain so.

troupo 2y ago
Even with ePrivacy Directive you don't need the dark pattern banners the industry puts up
- estebank 2y ago
  Correct. The banners started as malicious compliance and then became the "industry norm" so everyone followed through.

btbuilder 2y ago

I always choose the “essential cookies only” option. This is normally harder than accepting all cookies, but it is getting easier over time. I rarely see a site that has essential-only.

rrr_oh_man 2y ago
> I rarely see a site that has essential-only. You'd need no cookie banner, then. :-)

zugi 2y ago

What's even more annoying is there were already browser plug-ins, and now there are built-in browser tools, for rejecting cookies or deciding which cookies to store permanently versus which to accept temporarily. GDPR forced a one-size-fits-all solution to a "problem" that was already solved, and got people used to a hostile UI pattern on websites.

troupo 2y ago
> GDPR forced a one-size-fits-all solution Can you point me to the exact place in GDPR that talks about browsers and cookies > to a "problem" that was already solved If it was already solved, why did the industry come up with the dark patterns to trick people into blindly agreeing to tracking and blaming the law for that?

jonwinstanley 2y ago

Not everyone clicks ok. Having a choice is better.

osigurdson 2y ago
You always have the choice not to use the internet. A far better solution would be to manage this on the client side.