3 ms·
It was bad legislation because it didn't achieve anything except make visiting websites more annoying. I don't care what the politicians intended. The outcome
by runeks 6mo ago
It was bad legislation because it didn't achieve anything except make visiting websites more annoying.
I don't care what the politicians intended. The outcome is no improvement in privacy but more annoying banners.
- dijit 6mo agoThe same way that the legislation that abolished slavery was bad because it didn’t account for the prison systems leasing out unpaid workers leading to even worse conditions for black folk in the US? People talk as if the EU should have done nothing, or that the rule should be repealed, the GDPR forced people to have a functioning deny all. The real lesson here is that people would rather annoy their users for money than create good products. Its a case for regulation.
- anonymars 6mo agoThe cookie banners typically have an opt out. How is that not a privacy improvement?
- gib444 6mo agoWhat do you think most users click? The quickest and easiest option ("agree"/ "that's fine”) to get on with their day. That then makes consent explicit which is worse than the previous gray area
- anonymars 6mo agoI don't follow this reasoning Because most people won't make use of their ability to opt out and will thus get the exact same thing as they were already getting, that's "worse"? Somehow this nebulous "gray area" concept of not explicitly consenting (so, no actual difference) is better than the actual ability to opt out?
- gib444 6mo agoI don't think you're trying to understand at all