4 ms·
> What's not right? Giving up pervasive and invasive tracking and selling user data? Exactly. Abstaining isn't a light pattern. A light pattern would be doing
by ruthmarx 2y ago
> What's not right? Giving up pervasive and invasive tracking and selling user data?
Exactly. Abstaining isn't a light pattern. A light pattern would be doing the thing in a non malicious way.
> GDPR, literally, is: if you use data not strictly required for the functioning of your business, ask user for consent.
You're missing the point. You were alleging businesses are using dark patterns while being in compliance with the law. I'm asking what a light pattern would be for collecting as much data as possible which is an explicitly legal activity as long as the regulations are followed.
You answered not engaging in that activity at all, which is not an answer.
- troupo 2y ago> Abstaining isn't a light pattern. "Abstaining from selling hard drugs to minors isn't a light pattern. Show me how we can sell hard drugs to minors even with all the regulations in place" Though I hate analogies, but this is what this sounds like to me. > I'm asking what a light pattern would be for collecting as much data as possible which is an explicitly legal activity as long as the regulations are followed. You either follow GDPR or do not engage in this activity. What is so hard to understand? Instead the industry came up with the obnoxious cookie banners tricking users into providing any and all data and selling that data to thousands of "partners".
- ruthmarx 2y ago> Though I hate analogies, but this is what this sounds like to me. The difference though is that selling drugs to kids is flat out illegal, no ifs ands or buts. Data collection is explicitly legal as long as regulations are followed, so I think it's a flawed analogy. > What is so hard to understand? That the businesses are complying with the GDPR but you're still saying it's a dark pattern and complaining about what they are doing. I need to remind you at this point the topic of discussion is who is responsible for the cookie popups, not the morality or legality of the activity that the EU felt required regulation. The answer is the EU, because that's how they chose to address the issue. > Instead the industry came up with the obnoxious cookie banners tricking users into providing any and all data and selling that data to thousands of "partners". Most cookie banners are not deceptive at all. They are the result of complying with the legislation the EU mandated. In fact, the cookie banners that are as straightforward and clear as possible, and as non intrusive as possible, are an example of a light pattern in this context.