4 ms·
Because when they try to solve it the solution is us navigating a cookie dialog puzzle where if we lose we give up our privacy. The setting could have just bee
by whywhywhywhy 2y ago
Because when they try to solve it the solution is us navigating a cookie dialog puzzle where if we lose we give up our privacy.
The setting could have just been a browser toggle, but because of government incompetence every publisher gets to skirt the guidelines and trick or frustrate people into clicking accept.
You can be against the problem and against incompetents forcing bad solutions at a government level or using it to build income streams through fines.
- immibis 2y agoYou are free to enable Do-Not-Track and then sue a company for not respecting it, which will create precedent that companies must default to "reject all" if this header is present, if you win.
- Y_Y 2y agoSeems sensible, which makes me wonder why it hasn't already happened
- troupo 2y agoWhen Do Not Track was introduced, the industry immediately used it to fingerprint and track users. In the end Safari ended up removing it. As to why no one sued, it's really hard to prove that a company doesn't respect the header.
- pyrale 2y agoIt's almost as if companies implementing these systems have a vested interest in making the most adversarial implementation and/or flouting the law.
- troupo 2y ago> Because when they try to solve it the solution is us navigating a cookie dialog puzzle Please show me where exactly EU laws mandate the cookie dialog puzzle. > The setting could have just been a browser toggle, Yes, it could've, and browsers have now had 6 years to implement it. Instead, the industry decided that obnoxious cookie banners are the way to go. > against incompetents forcing bad solutions Which solution is forced by EU laws, and can you quote me the exact wording that forces this solution?
- whywhywhywhy 2y agoI mean you seem to know a lot about it so how about you provide the sources rather than trying to impose work on others as an argument strategy.