3 ms·
The point was to discourage doing the sort of data collection that requires consent. Websites that don't want to spy on you and don't have an inherent need to c
by JohnFen 2y ago
The point was to discourage doing the sort of data collection that requires consent. Websites that don't want to spy on you and don't have an inherent need to collect protected information about you don't need to get consent to begin with.
The very fact that a website is presenting a cookie popup to you is effectively an admission that the website is engaging in unsavory practices. When I see one, I think twice about using the site.
- erik_seaberg 2y agoThere's nothing unsavory about HN using a cookie to label your comments with your username. Cookie warnings are like "known to the state of California to cause cancer" warnings. If not displaying a warning creates serious risks, and there is no compensation for legal costs to prove that the warning wasn't necessary, everyone will display the warning everywhere as a precaution.
- JohnFen 2y ago> There's nothing unsavory about HN using a cookie to label your comments with your username. True, and if that's all the data collection is about, then there's no need for a cookie banner. > If not displaying a warning creates serious risks It does not create serious risks. It's pretty clear what sort of data collection is risky, and any site will know if they're squarely in the "safe zone". The risk is if they want to engage in sensitive data collection, or if they want to push as closely as possible to that.