3 ms·
And if the regulators didn't predict such compliance they should be replaced with competent actors in their jobs. That was the obvious outcome. What did people
by shadowgovt 2y ago
And if the regulators didn't predict such compliance they should be replaced with competent actors in their jobs.
That was the obvious outcome. What did people predict: site owners leaving money on the table? Who pays for operating the sites then?
- Aeolun 2y agoAll the sites that need advertising like that can just die off and leave the internet a better place.
- shadowgovt 2y agoDid we ever think that would be the end result of all this?
- schmidtleonard 2y agoWhen GDPR was first going through the public circuit I remember reading the proposed laws and being pleasantly surprised to find that they specifically called out and forbade the likely workarounds, including the obnoxious banners we now see everywhere. I would love to know what happened. Did the laws get "revised" to re-open the loophole? Was superseding legislation passed? Did the courts reject it? Are there enforcement issues?
- roenxi 2y agoThat sounds like a legal minefield - I would point out that GDPR-style legislation exists because the legislators don't trust the industry to assess what is reasonable. So the industry would be in a position where: 1) They aren't trusted to be reasonable about user consent. 2) They are only to take action when they judge it is reasonable to check user consent. It'd probably be a very rocky process to nail down what those words like "loophole" and "workaround" mean as the advertisers start abusing prescribed no-banner situations.
- p_l 2y agoTL;DR the enforcement simply lacks manpower, and the most egregious cases go to court which also takes time.