3 ms·

> Just make people click something every once in a while But why? This is EU Cookies Banner level of state interference making UX worse for everyone just becau

• scoofy 3mo ago
  "Some lawmaker" is democracy. The point is that people are pissed off about the addictive UX, same as cigarettes, and candy. If you want to make a serious argument, just argue that you should be able to opt out, which is an entirely reasonable position.
  • iamnothere 3mo ago
    Democracy is bound by the limits of the Constitution, outside of an amendment or a revolution. (Note that the latter is usually considered a Bad Thing; occasionally it works out for the better, but just as often for the worse.)
    • dudefeliciano 3mo ago
      the EU doesn't have a constitution
      • ben_w 3mo ago
        It does, it's just not the US constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties_of_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaties_of_the_European_Union
        • dudefeliciano 3mo ago
          Right, it has a set of treaties, not a unified constitution. And there have been a number of cases in which member state laws clashed with EU laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law
      • iamnothere 3mo ago
        Is CA in the US or the EU? Didn’t think so, and we didn’t ask for your opinion
        • dudefeliciano 3mo ago
          > This is EU Cookies Banner level of state interference making UX worse for everyone A couple of comments up in this thread.
• asadotzler 3mo ago
  [flagged]
• Insimwytim 3mo ago
  As many have said before: it's basically malicious compliance. They're supposed to be super annoying ... Instead of complying, they choose this obnoxious practice so they could continue ... monitoring every action a visitor does. You don't need a cookie banner to be allowed to create Cookies. You only need them if you're using them for something like tracking. [1] Regulators didn't enforce cookie banners. Cookie banners are a form of malicious compliance. When you complain about them, you are doing the lobbying work of ad companies for free. The correct solution is to just not spy on people, and the problem is that the EU didn't go far enough and just ban the behavior altogether. [2] Cookie pops are malicious compliance to regulations that legitimately protect consumers. You’ve cherry picked one bad side effect to throw out all the ways the EU is way ahead of anyone else in protecting consumers [3] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29529148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29529148 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38299135 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38299135 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46552795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46552795
  • ahnick 3mo ago
    The EU Council are some of the worst offenders when it comes to annoying cookie banners. All regulation and compliance do is make things more burdensome for new entrants, which inevitably allows big companies to build moats that don't have competition. The side effect of passing such legislation was easily foreseeable and yet the EU did it anyway. There are legitimate reasons for companies to track and if you felt that the tracking was malicious, then don't do business with the company. The regulation was never needed.
  • tqi 3mo ago
    For one, compliance is compliance. For another, "You only need them if you're using them for something like tracking." yeah, sites want to track user behavior and the eu said if you want to do that you gotta have a banner. How is that "malicious"? Seems like the eu got exactly what they wanted?
    • Y-bar 3mo ago
      > and the eu said if you want to do that you gotta have a banner. No they did absolutely not say that! They said I need informed consent before I collect your personal identifiable information. Nothing prevents me from instead of using a banner, for example having a small widget in the footer or elsewhere on my site if I were to want to collect it (I have no analytics or cookies on my site at all).
• Paracompact 3mo ago
  When it came time for website owners to decide whether they (1) would remove unnecessary cookies, (2) receive consent from their users for extra cookies via reasonable banners, or (3) circumvent consent from their users for extra cookies via dark-patterned banners... ... virtually no website owners opted for (1), a minority opted for (2), and most opted for (3). Yet every technolibertarian thinks (3) is the law's doing and not the consequence of other technolibertarians.