3 ms·
Malicious compliance gets the website two benefits: 1) Annoying the customer enough with the popups might net a permission to track from an user who originally
by nikanj 2y ago
Malicious compliance gets the website two benefits: 1) Annoying the customer enough with the popups might net a permission to track from an user who originally did not want the cookies 2) Making the cookie banners as frustrating as possible increases the political pressure against the EU, hopefully leading to them repelling the anti-tracking legislation
There's no upsides for a website from providing an easy "Never track me" button, or just not using analytics cookies - you don't have to put up cookie consent banners for technical cookies used to save e.g. light/dark mode preference
- blkhawk 2y agoThe issue is also that the cookie banner has become a meme for non technical "deciders". That means even sites that do not track you will have the banner.
- shmeeed 2y agoDo you have an example for such a site? Where does one even find a site without tracking nowadays? How is such a banner even supposed to work when there is no choice for the user to make? I mean, someone has to make that banner, so it's quite a way from the rash decision to its execution, where at any point (preferrably immediately) someone could and should step in and say "we are not required to do that and we should not spend any money on it". In my experience, non technical deciders are often sadly under-advised, sometimes because tech people who might know better fail to communicate even very simple facts like in these in an understandable way.
- blkhawk 2y agoIt costs time of people who don't weant to spend the time to decide if a cookie banner is needed. its the default. it COSTS money to decide not to have it.