4 ms·
15 years ago people would've called it spyware.
by b3orn 3mo ago
15 years ago people would've called it spyware.
- TeMPOraL 3mo ago20 years ago people would've called it a trojan horse. But then, by standards of two decades ago, every website that cannot legally avoid showing a GDPR popup would be classified as malware. As it should be today. Alas, standards have changed.
- tosti 3mo agoThere were no cookie popups 20 years ago.
- ledoge 3mo agoI think they meant that the use of cookies for analytics/tracking, which is what triggers the popup requirement, would have been considered malicious.
- TeMPOraL 3mo agoIndeed.
- _joel 3mo agoErr, there were, prepare to feel old "Cookie consent pop-ups first started appearing following the adoption of the ePrivacy Directive in 2002" 25 years!
- reactordev 3mo agoI beg to differ, there absolutely was cookie popups. We also had popup windows, popup ads, java applets that melted your cpu, and browsers with no grid. Oh, and we had Shockwave and Flash…
- efreak 2mo agoSome browsers would individually request you approve each cookie s website set. This is a feature of the browser itself that the website is unable to control. Lynx still has this option, I believe.
- blagie 3mo ago> But then, by standards of two decades ago, every website that cannot legally avoid showing a GDPR popup would be classified as malware. As it should be today. Alas, standards have changed. I don't think you've read GDPR. In Europe (at least my part), *every* organization has a GDPR policy you need to agree to. Your child's school. Summer camps. Etc. Most are also conservative and reasonable. What's broken is the GDPR popup with a dozen "legitimate interest" toggles for spying on you.
- matthewmacleod 2mo agoThat was exactly the point OP was making.
- mrguyorama 2mo agoThat pop up is not required by GDPR You only need explicit consent from the user for tracking you do not require for valid business purposes It's like complaining that OSHA sucks because every time you visit the grocery store you have to sign a waver that if they throw you in a wood chipper, you cant sue them. That problem is not with liability wavers! What feels really crummy to me is how many people don't seem to know that websites cannot really prevent you from using them if you reject optional cookies, so average people are afraid that if they say no, they can't use websites.
- ge96 3mo agoFunny some you can't say no, so I'm like alright guess I'm not going in
- amelius 3mo agoYes, let's put the Overton window back where it used to be.
- inigyou 2mo ago... If it was spying—,it isn't