13 ms·

Interesting article. This policy has felt like a complete failure, but I didn't know the depths of how badly it has failed. I would really like to see these di

Interesting article. This policy has felt like a complete failure, but I didn't know the depths of how badly it has failed. I would really like to see these die. Regulators should just work with browser vendors to make an API that I can set at the browser level, and websites just read that to know my preferences and leave me alone.

sofixa 2y ago
Your preferences should be on the website level though, not global. And you should be asked about it on first visiting the website. Let me explain why with an example: say you're the type of people who doesn't care about "privacy" online ("I've got nothing to hide"), or you do; and you want to "support " certain ad-supported websites you're a fan of; but not that new clickbait toilet paper your aunt sends you. I can't think of any way to have a good UX to opt in or out of "tracking" cookies which people would actually use (few will bother changing the defaults, and most mindlessly click ok).
- awfulneutral 2y ago
  Why not do like with popups, and show a little toast with "x tracking cookies were blocked, click to allow"? Cookies could have to register whether they are essential or not. It's really wild how much work must have been created by distributing this problem to every website on earth instead of doing it in the browser.
  - Earw0rm 2y ago
    Because Chrome (Google) and a large chunk of the web media publishing ecosystem are hooked on this crap. It's a hundred billion dollar business. And yes, it's mostly selling garbage, but that's hardly unique in 21st century capitalism.
  - greyface- 2y ago
    Lynx, back in the day, forced you to explicitly accept/reject each cookie offered by the server while loading the page. Modern browsers silently accept them all by default. Browsers have regressed.
- litenboll 2y ago
  The important part here is that it's at the browser level, IMO. Then it's the user's choice to either reject/accept all by default or get prompted once per page. I'd guess that 99.9% want to set it globally and never think about it again.
  - cynicalsecurity 2y ago
    It's been on the browser level for ages. It's the DoNotTrack http header. The websites simply ignore it and hope the users will simply keep pressing the consent button.
- wruza 2y ago
  Your preferences should be on the website level though, not global. And you should be asked about it on first visiting the website. Preferences should be expressible in any form a user seems fitting their needs. If they want to block-all,enable-per-site or enable-all,block-per-site, or block-mask, or enable-mask, or top-down rule priority list — they should be able to. Designing preferences in any other way is a dark pattern not worth considering as a fully user-controlled mechanism. I can't think of any way to have a good UX to opt in or out of "tracking" cookies which people would actually use Virtually any UX is better than cookie popups as they are now, cause they get designed with interests of a site owner in mind. This alone makes it the worst possible UX on average.
- wvenable 2y ago
  Why would anyone want to support an ad-supported website by allowing cross-domain tracking? I think that's a stretch.
gpvos 2y ago
The API exists already: the DNT (do not track) header.
- troupo 2y ago
  And the industry is using it to fingerprint and track users.

sofixa 2y ago

Your preferences should be on the website level though, not global. And you should be asked about it on first visiting the website. Let me explain why with an example: say you're the type of people who doesn't care about "privacy" online ("I've got nothing to hide"), or you do; and you want to "support " certain ad-supported websites you're a fan of; but not that new clickbait toilet paper your aunt sends you. I can't think of any way to have a good UX to opt in or out of "tracking" cookies which people would actually use (few will bother changing the defaults, and most mindlessly click ok).

awfulneutral 2y ago
Why not do like with popups, and show a little toast with "x tracking cookies were blocked, click to allow"? Cookies could have to register whether they are essential or not. It's really wild how much work must have been created by distributing this problem to every website on earth instead of doing it in the browser.
- Earw0rm 2y ago
  Because Chrome (Google) and a large chunk of the web media publishing ecosystem are hooked on this crap. It's a hundred billion dollar business. And yes, it's mostly selling garbage, but that's hardly unique in 21st century capitalism.
- greyface- 2y ago
  Lynx, back in the day, forced you to explicitly accept/reject each cookie offered by the server while loading the page. Modern browsers silently accept them all by default. Browsers have regressed.
litenboll 2y ago
The important part here is that it's at the browser level, IMO. Then it's the user's choice to either reject/accept all by default or get prompted once per page. I'd guess that 99.9% want to set it globally and never think about it again.
- cynicalsecurity 2y ago
  It's been on the browser level for ages. It's the DoNotTrack http header. The websites simply ignore it and hope the users will simply keep pressing the consent button.
wruza 2y ago
Your preferences should be on the website level though, not global. And you should be asked about it on first visiting the website. Preferences should be expressible in any form a user seems fitting their needs. If they want to block-all,enable-per-site or enable-all,block-per-site, or block-mask, or enable-mask, or top-down rule priority list — they should be able to. Designing preferences in any other way is a dark pattern not worth considering as a fully user-controlled mechanism. I can't think of any way to have a good UX to opt in or out of "tracking" cookies which people would actually use Virtually any UX is better than cookie popups as they are now, cause they get designed with interests of a site owner in mind. This alone makes it the worst possible UX on average.
wvenable 2y ago
Why would anyone want to support an ad-supported website by allowing cross-domain tracking? I think that's a stretch.

gpvos 2y ago

The API exists already: the DNT (do not track) header.

troupo 2y ago
And the industry is using it to fingerprint and track users.