4 ms·

If it weren't for the cookie banners (I blame the EU, but I'm open to corrections), I'd agree with you.

no_wizard 1y ago
I disagree, cookie banners are not the bane people make them out to be. The alternative is much worse, which is having zero say in tracking cookies. I'll take a banner on every single website to have more control of that. I really don't see the issue. If you really find them annoying, use ublock with a proper cookie banner filter or something like that
- afiori 1y ago
  IIUC the infamous cookie banner law only to inform the user of cookies/client tracking, it did not require to ask for consent. that came with GDPR and other privacy laws
nemomarx 1y ago
Most cookie banners don't seem to actually meet the requirements of the law, at least to my reading, which does say denying them has to be as easy as accepting. And the law doesn't even suggest a popup or banner, just that you can't add cookies without receiving permission - fully opt in would work for it
- miohtama 1y ago
  You can make as many as laws you want, but if no one cares you are only harming those businesses who care.
bigyabai 1y ago
If this is your biggest complaint then I think you lack perspective.
- ackfoobar 1y ago
  Cookie banners themselves is not a huge problem, but it is a good example of EU regulations being prone to stupid unintended consequences.
bossyTeacher 1y ago
Blame the companies not the EU. Most companies don't need to track you and thus don't need the cookie banner.
thefz 1y ago
That's the effect of malicious compliance rather than the law itself
- shagie 1y ago
  https://gdpr.eu https://gdpr.eu maliciously complies with itself? Note that's a company page that the EU pays to do it.. the EU government page is even worse. https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/rules-business-and-organisations_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...
TeMPOraL 1y ago
TL;DR: the cookie banners and consent forms are designed to make you blame the EU. You don't need a cookie banner if you aren't doing anything shady. Using cookies (or other such mechanisms) does not require information or consent popups when they're necessary to make the product/service work for technical reason - the canonical example being session cookies. The corollary here being, you only need consent popups if you're doing something shady but not strictly illegal. They're not meant to be annoying - they're there because it's illegal to do shady shit without the user agreeing to it, and "agreeing" in the EU means "informed consent". So you have to inform, and then get consent. It's all pretty reasonable. But of course, people doing shady shit really don't want the users to understand it and risk them not consenting - and they especially hate having to ask in the first place. The industry settled on a "malicious compliance" approach to GDPR - show popups that, as much as they can get away with it, maximize the chance of people consenting to make the popup go away, make the "informed" part as opaque as possible, and generally make this thing super annoying - and then tell people it's all EU's fault, hoping enough Europeans will buy it and the public pressure will make EU undo GDPR.
- shagie 1y ago
  >TL;DR: the cookie banners and consent forms are designed to make you blame the EU. https://european-union.europa.eu/index_en https://european-union.europa.eu/index_en https://gdpr.eu https://gdpr.eu If cookie banners were not designed to be required... why does the EU pages themselves use them?
  - TeMPOraL 1y ago
    Not ideal, but those banners are unobtrusive, and link to clear information on what they collect and why, and which things need your consent: https://gdpr.eu/privacy-policy/ https://gdpr.eu/privacy-policy/ https://european-union.europa.eu/cookies_en https://european-union.europa.eu/cookies_en Though again, not ideal IMO; based on skimming those policies, I think they could've set it up so consent popup only shows in specific situations that trigger the need for it. That, and I don't get why they use (a minimal build of) Google Analytics, and let that data fly over to the US (which they explicitly acknowledge). That's just lazy.

I disagree, cookie banners are not the bane people make them out to be. The alternative is much worse, which is having zero say in tracking cookies. I'll take a banner on every single website to have more control of that. I really don't see the issue. If you really find them annoying, use ublock with a proper cookie banner filter or something like that

afiori 1y ago
IIUC the infamous cookie banner law only to inform the user of cookies/client tracking, it did not require to ask for consent. that came with GDPR and other privacy laws

nemomarx 1y ago

Most cookie banners don't seem to actually meet the requirements of the law, at least to my reading, which does say denying them has to be as easy as accepting. And the law doesn't even suggest a popup or banner, just that you can't add cookies without receiving permission - fully opt in would work for it

miohtama 1y ago
You can make as many as laws you want, but if no one cares you are only harming those businesses who care.

bigyabai 1y ago

If this is your biggest complaint then I think you lack perspective.

ackfoobar 1y ago
Cookie banners themselves is not a huge problem, but it is a good example of EU regulations being prone to stupid unintended consequences.

bossyTeacher 1y ago

Blame the companies not the EU. Most companies don't need to track you and thus don't need the cookie banner.

thefz 1y ago

That's the effect of malicious compliance rather than the law itself

shagie 1y ago
https://gdpr.eu https://gdpr.eu maliciously complies with itself? Note that's a company page that the EU pays to do it.. the EU government page is even worse. https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/rules-business-and-organisations_en https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...

TeMPOraL 1y ago

TL;DR: the cookie banners and consent forms are designed to make you blame the EU. You don't need a cookie banner if you aren't doing anything shady. Using cookies (or other such mechanisms) does not require information or consent popups when they're necessary to make the product/service work for technical reason - the canonical example being session cookies. The corollary here being, you only need consent popups if you're doing something shady but not strictly illegal. They're not meant to be annoying - they're there because it's illegal to do shady shit without the user agreeing to it, and "agreeing" in the EU means "informed consent". So you have to inform, and then get consent. It's all pretty reasonable. But of course, people doing shady shit really don't want the users to understand it and risk them not consenting - and they especially hate having to ask in the first place. The industry settled on a "malicious compliance" approach to GDPR - show popups that, as much as they can get away with it, maximize the chance of people consenting to make the popup go away, make the "informed" part as opaque as possible, and generally make this thing super annoying - and then tell people it's all EU's fault, hoping enough Europeans will buy it and the public pressure will make EU undo GDPR.

shagie 1y ago
>TL;DR: the cookie banners and consent forms are designed to make you blame the EU. https://european-union.europa.eu/index_en https://european-union.europa.eu/index_en https://gdpr.eu https://gdpr.eu If cookie banners were not designed to be required... why does the EU pages themselves use them?
- TeMPOraL 1y ago
  Not ideal, but those banners are unobtrusive, and link to clear information on what they collect and why, and which things need your consent: https://gdpr.eu/privacy-policy/ https://gdpr.eu/privacy-policy/ https://european-union.europa.eu/cookies_en https://european-union.europa.eu/cookies_en Though again, not ideal IMO; based on skimming those policies, I think they could've set it up so consent popup only shows in specific situations that trigger the need for it. That, and I don't get why they use (a minimal build of) Google Analytics, and let that data fly over to the US (which they explicitly acknowledge). That's just lazy.