4 ms·

> Don’t look for a section on permissions or consent in that document, by the way. There isn’t one. And nothing about nerd lawyer stuff like “opt out of sale” o

> Don’t look for a section on permissions or consent in that document, by the way. There isn’t one. And nothing about nerd lawyer stuff like “opt out of sale” or “objections to processing” in there, either. The Big Tech companies want a two-track system, where other companies’ ad features are required to do all the privacy regulation hassles, but the browser’s own built-in tracking feature is something that people have to find the right setting for and turn off. This language to make consent popups sound good is suspicious. Not being interrupted while you're browsing is good. A browser setting that people can turn off once, for all participating websites, is good.

rho138 5mo ago
That’s what the Do Not Track signal was for, but tech bros still don’t get consent sooooooooo…
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
customguy 5mo ago
You don't need cookie banners unless you want to track the user before they opted in on their own (maybe in the "website settings"). That's why countless websites have none. The browser would only have to ask once, and then it would still just be "one browser setting", except you'd be notified it exists, as soon as it exits. So what's the point here, other than trotting out the same old stuff nut about cookie banners? On update, "this is the thing, and that thing is enabled by default, is that okay? Otherwise, click no, then it gets turned off. If you change your mind later, it's under settings -> thing" It's not complicated, and blaming laws that enforce human rights to avoid the most basic craftsmanship is suspicious.
- SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
  Is it the case that "countless websites have none"? Some websites, especially small ones operated outside of the EU, simply don't care about their obligations under European law. But in my experience it's extremely rare for European websites not to feature a cookie banner. It's not like it's just corporations: the official websites of the European Commission (https://commission.europa.eu/ https://commission.europa.eu/), the presidency of France (https://www.elysee.fr/ https://www.elysee.fr/), the chancellorship of Germany (https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de/ https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de/), etc. all have one.
  - customguy 5mo ago
    > Some websites, especially small ones operated outside of the EU, simply don't care about their obligations under European law. What about lobster.rs? Such as HN? Honest question, for all I know they're breaking EU law and nobody cares. Or maybe they don't. Anyway, pouet.net doesn't have one. It links to a ton of group sites, many European, try to count the ones that don't have a cookie banner. For fun, I did a quick and dirty test on the HN front page at the time of this comment, out of 30 links, I counted 11 cookie banners. Let's say I missed a few (a bunch of the ones I counted were a small bar at the top or the bottom, easy to miss, not even sure if they blocked the page), let's say it's 20 out of 30. One third of all websites is still a huuuuuuge amount of websites. I took privacy seriously before I "had to". So for me, nothing changed. Why would it? You can have a link in the footer to opt into tracking. If actually "value consent" and all that. It's a complete non-issue for most sites that have banners, they could just stop being creeps and it'd be fine. But they don't want to stop, they want to annoy users as much as legally possible and then funnel the annoyance at the laws protecting those users against them. "Have you heard about this new thing, you have to wear something around your ankle and can't be a school teacher and stuff like that? Yeah it's really insane, how will children learn anything, ever again?" "Wait, what are you even talking about? Have you done something?" Of course there's corner cases, of course this can also be a hassle for sites that aren't "creeps". But generally? The same generic false claims, over and over? Just no.
    - SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
      HN used to be non-compliant, but does seem to have fixed it, I'm not seeing any cookies in a browser where I'm not logged in. pouet.net is tracking me. On my first visit they deposited a cookie named POUETSESS4 with a 1 year expiry and a persistent hash identifier in my browser. I checked a few outbound links from that site to European domains, and it does seem to be about 50/50 on whether they have similar problems, which is much better than any rate I've seen elsewhere. Good on this community for having a lot of folks who care about privacy and roll their own web frameworks. But I doubt it's the case that the other 50% or the parent site intended to secretly track me; they just ended up with a dependency on some tracking framework by accident, and they're too small to get in trouble for it.
avaer 5mo ago
Except this didn't need to be a thing at all. Nobody wants ads. You could have no interruptions, no consent popups, and no tracking, just don't have ads. Trying to find logic or middle ground on this issue will never make sense, because the ad cartel is based on absurd fiction: that ads are good for people, rather than just being stochastic predation on the fraction who are not successfully able to turn off the malware. So we arrive at the absurdity that the onus is on the users to defend themselves against the product, and how to present the options to them, so that a sufficient proportion of the prey doesn't do it.
- cwillu 5mo ago
  Hell, you can have the damn ad without any tracking, and you still wouldn't need the popup.
  - hdgvhicv 5mo ago
    Ronseal’s quick drying woodstain. Does exactly what it says on tin. Ronseal didn’t track me when they advertised it to me in the 90s, but the advert still existed and worked. Same with richer smoother Nescafé gold blend. the ambassador constantly spoils use with Ferraro Roche, and I can always get a great deal on car insurance if I compare the meerkat. These adverts worked, and had no tracking.
    - mrweasel 5mo ago
      Exactly, I really question how much value personalized ads provide over contextual ones. It's very hard to track or provide an experiment for, but right now companies seems to be accepting the "Trust me bro" from the large advertising companies.
      - Terr_ 5mo ago
        > how much value personalized ads provide I think it's important we break this question apart by "value to whom." 1. Consumers barely notice ads for things they don't care about. 2. Sellers will see it as percentage inefficiency in their spending, wrapped up in other reporting noise. 3. Ad-networks on the other hand, may view a not-interested impression as a lost chance to make revenue by putting something "better" in its place.

rho138 5mo ago

That’s what the Do Not Track signal was for, but tech bros still don’t get consent sooooooooo…

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]

customguy 5mo ago

You don't need cookie banners unless you want to track the user before they opted in on their own (maybe in the "website settings"). That's why countless websites have none. The browser would only have to ask once, and then it would still just be "one browser setting", except you'd be notified it exists, as soon as it exits. So what's the point here, other than trotting out the same old stuff nut about cookie banners? On update, "this is the thing, and that thing is enabled by default, is that okay? Otherwise, click no, then it gets turned off. If you change your mind later, it's under settings -> thing" It's not complicated, and blaming laws that enforce human rights to avoid the most basic craftsmanship is suspicious.

SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
Is it the case that "countless websites have none"? Some websites, especially small ones operated outside of the EU, simply don't care about their obligations under European law. But in my experience it's extremely rare for European websites not to feature a cookie banner. It's not like it's just corporations: the official websites of the European Commission (https://commission.europa.eu/ https://commission.europa.eu/), the presidency of France (https://www.elysee.fr/ https://www.elysee.fr/), the chancellorship of Germany (https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de/ https://www.bundeskanzler.de/bk-de/), etc. all have one.
- customguy 5mo ago
  > Some websites, especially small ones operated outside of the EU, simply don't care about their obligations under European law. What about lobster.rs? Such as HN? Honest question, for all I know they're breaking EU law and nobody cares. Or maybe they don't. Anyway, pouet.net doesn't have one. It links to a ton of group sites, many European, try to count the ones that don't have a cookie banner. For fun, I did a quick and dirty test on the HN front page at the time of this comment, out of 30 links, I counted 11 cookie banners. Let's say I missed a few (a bunch of the ones I counted were a small bar at the top or the bottom, easy to miss, not even sure if they blocked the page), let's say it's 20 out of 30. One third of all websites is still a huuuuuuge amount of websites. I took privacy seriously before I "had to". So for me, nothing changed. Why would it? You can have a link in the footer to opt into tracking. If actually "value consent" and all that. It's a complete non-issue for most sites that have banners, they could just stop being creeps and it'd be fine. But they don't want to stop, they want to annoy users as much as legally possible and then funnel the annoyance at the laws protecting those users against them. "Have you heard about this new thing, you have to wear something around your ankle and can't be a school teacher and stuff like that? Yeah it's really insane, how will children learn anything, ever again?" "Wait, what are you even talking about? Have you done something?" Of course there's corner cases, of course this can also be a hassle for sites that aren't "creeps". But generally? The same generic false claims, over and over? Just no.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
    HN used to be non-compliant, but does seem to have fixed it, I'm not seeing any cookies in a browser where I'm not logged in. pouet.net is tracking me. On my first visit they deposited a cookie named POUETSESS4 with a 1 year expiry and a persistent hash identifier in my browser. I checked a few outbound links from that site to European domains, and it does seem to be about 50/50 on whether they have similar problems, which is much better than any rate I've seen elsewhere. Good on this community for having a lot of folks who care about privacy and roll their own web frameworks. But I doubt it's the case that the other 50% or the parent site intended to secretly track me; they just ended up with a dependency on some tracking framework by accident, and they're too small to get in trouble for it.

avaer 5mo ago

Except this didn't need to be a thing at all. Nobody wants ads. You could have no interruptions, no consent popups, and no tracking, just don't have ads. Trying to find logic or middle ground on this issue will never make sense, because the ad cartel is based on absurd fiction: that ads are good for people, rather than just being stochastic predation on the fraction who are not successfully able to turn off the malware. So we arrive at the absurdity that the onus is on the users to defend themselves against the product, and how to present the options to them, so that a sufficient proportion of the prey doesn't do it.

cwillu 5mo ago
Hell, you can have the damn ad without any tracking, and you still wouldn't need the popup.
- hdgvhicv 5mo ago
  Ronseal’s quick drying woodstain. Does exactly what it says on tin. Ronseal didn’t track me when they advertised it to me in the 90s, but the advert still existed and worked. Same with richer smoother Nescafé gold blend. the ambassador constantly spoils use with Ferraro Roche, and I can always get a great deal on car insurance if I compare the meerkat. These adverts worked, and had no tracking.
  - mrweasel 5mo ago
    Exactly, I really question how much value personalized ads provide over contextual ones. It's very hard to track or provide an experiment for, but right now companies seems to be accepting the "Trust me bro" from the large advertising companies.
    - Terr_ 5mo ago
      > how much value personalized ads provide I think it's important we break this question apart by "value to whom." 1. Consumers barely notice ads for things they don't care about. 2. Sellers will see it as percentage inefficiency in their spending, wrapped up in other reporting noise. 3. Ad-networks on the other hand, may view a not-interested impression as a lost chance to make revenue by putting something "better" in its place.