3 ms·

The GDPR clearly states that denying consent has to be as easy as giving it.

• loeg 1y ago
  The problem is the pop up banner. Having a big "deny" button does not solve the GDPR cookie banner problem.
  • vanviegen 1y ago
    I think that does eventually solve it. If clicking "deny" is as easy as clicking "accept", people will mostly just do the former. As that will erode most worth derived from tracking, sensible operators will decide to stop annoying users and just ditch the tracking altogether. Or so I hope. I wouldn't know, as Brave does a pretty good job of hiding cookie banners in the mean-time.
    • mrguyorama 1y ago
      >If clicking "deny" is as easy as clicking "accept", people will mostly just do the former. Unfortunately, I don't actually think people realize the law is on their side here. My girlfriend never clicked "Reject All" until I told her to because she thought something wouldn't work if she did that!
      • speleding 1y ago
        Your girlfriend was somewhat right though: if you click "Reject all" they cannot show you targeted ads, and will show you generic ads instead. That's why I always accept the tracking cookies, for me the price of the privacy incursion is worth seeing more relevant ads.
    • loeg 1y ago
      If the goal of the law was to ban tracking, it should have just done that. Otherwise, the purpose of the law is what it does -- mandate annoying tracking popups on every website.
      • GJim 1y ago
        > If the goal of the law was to ban tracking *sigh* Once again; the goal of the GDPR is to give users control of their personal data. There are (believe it or not) legitimate reasons why somebody might want to be tracked or allow their personal data to be collected; this is perfectly fine, provided its done fairly and the user gives their explicit opt-in consent. This shouldn't be hard to understand.
        • loeg 1y ago
          Half of the GDPR advocates here seem to think tracking is inherently bad and should be banned. Frankly, users don't want control at all costs, where that cost is "make the entire web really annoying." Either ban tracking or don't, but the current cost is too high.
          • GJim 1y ago
            > Half of the GDPR advocates here seem to think tracking is inherently bad and should be banned. There is noting wrong with tracking (indeed, it is essential for some services), provided it is done fairly with a clear opt-in. > but the current cost is too high. If you think the cost of providing informed consent (!) is "too high", them I'm afraid we live on different planets. If you don't like being constantly nagged to provide informed consent, then direct your ire to the scummy add-tech industry who are parasites on the web. One can serve up advertising without needing to invade a users privacy.
            • loeg 1y ago
              Yeah, you're exactly one of those GDPR advocates I was describing. You say this: > There is noting wrong with tracking But then you turn around and describe tracking as "scummy," "parasites," and "invading privacy." Again, I would find it less objectionable to just make tracking illegal than this "informed consent" bullshit (which is mostly not actually informed consent because no one wants to spend the time to be informed about every fricking decision here, it's just a website).