4 ms·
Accept the cookies and flush them out every time you close the browser. I think it would be naive anyway to assume that clicking no on a cookie banner would ach
by cm2187 8mo ago
Accept the cookies and flush them out every time you close the browser. I think it would be naive anyway to assume that clicking no on a cookie banner would achieve much for your privacy.
- bitmasher9 8mo agoWhy even ask for the cookies if denying them doesn’t achieve much? It’s naive to think that cookies are the only tool used for tracking, but they are the most powerful tool for web based tracking.
- N0isRESFe8GXmqR 8mo agoBecause EU Cookie Law was a flawed idea?
- OKRainbowKid 8mo agoHow so? The law doesn't require cookie banners. However, you could argue that tracking/advertisement cookies should have been banned completely and that the law is flawed in that it allows for tracking given user "consent".
- raw_anon_1111 8mo agoI love the EU apologists - “it wasn’t a bad law just because the outcome was bad”
- GJim 8mo agoThe alternative being to bend over and grab our ankles with both hands the moment the scummy ad-tech industry requests our data? Sorry mate, the GDPR is there for a bloody good reason; and legit companies obey the law.
- raw_anon_1111 8mo agoYes because of the GDPR, there aren’t still two trillion dollar+ market cap ad Tech companies. But at least we have cookie banners everywhere.
- GJim 8mo agoMore pity to those who (for some bizarre reason) voluntarily choose to interact with those ad-tech companies.
- raw_anon_1111 8mo agoSo you don’t use Google and don’t have an Android phone?
- drnick1 8mo agoThe GDPR is theater. An effective privacy law would have prevented data collection in the first place. Data collected will be abused, and a cute little banner won't change this.
- GJim 8mo agoUmmmmm. The GDPR does outlaw unnecessary collection of personal data without explicit opt-in consent. It's baffling you appear ignorant of this.
- gzread 8mo agoThe consent is the problem. It should be illegal even with consent, so this whole industry wouldn't exist.
- raw_anon_1111 8mo agoYet, Facebook and Google have a thriving business in the EU among I’m assuming EU companies. So you can pretend that the law is effective or you can admit that all it gave the world were cookie banners.
- wsng 8mo agoIt was not a flawed idea, but flawed execution. The law should have mandated to adhere to the user's "do not track" setting in the browser. That being said, it was very early regulation in this field, and more recent approaches are already better, e.g., GDPR, DMA.
- _heimdall 8mo agoBecause in some legal systems you're required to ask. You're also required to follow fairly specific rules relates to the user's selection and data, though I can't imagine enforcement keeps up with websites breaking those laws.
- mimimi31 8mo agoSo-called "cookie banners" usually ask for your consent to much more than optional tracking cookies. By accepting you might be giving your permission to e.g. track you through various fingerprinting methods, build a profile and share it with advertising partners.
- reddalo 8mo agoAn additional reason for not browsing the web without uBlock Origin on Firefox or other browsers with full support (not Chrome).
- cm2187 8mo agoIf they are aggressive enough to do fingerprinting, what makes you think they would abide to your choice? You do browser fingerprinting when you want to overcome people rejecting cookies.
- gzread 8mo agoUsually it's the fine of 2% of total global revenue (not profit)
- Barbing 8mo agoNo, shan’t give them the metrics :)