8 ms·

How do you think we feel about cookie notices?

by cal5k 3y ago

andix 3y ago
There is one solution for the cookie notices that is very seldomly talked about: just don't use any marketing cookies, then you don't need consent from the user :)
oblio 3y ago
Yes, housing and web cookies, equally important for one's life.
speeder 3y ago
Another European here: I think the law is fine. How companies, specially US companies react to it, that is not. 1. A ton of Health related websites in US refuse to work in Europe, because they are NOT willing to let you visit without sensitive data being grabbed with cookies. I truly do not understand how US people are ok with this. 2. The law says that you can't make hard to refuse cookies, yet many US-based sites I visit have shady, shady practices, for example many you have to click a button to see all the sliders for individual cookies, and when you click that button, it switches the orders of the buttons, so that the button you just clicked become "accept all", and the previous "accept all" button becomes "save current settings". Thus if you double click/tap by accident you accept all. 3. The sites that most often piss me off with shady cookie banner that tries its hardest to force you to opt-in to tracking, are ones that use a company called "Admiral", that according to LinkedIn is from Florida. https://www.linkedin.com/company/getadmiral/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/getadmiral/
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  > A ton of Health related websites in US refuse to work in Europe, because they are NOT willing to let you visit without sensitive data being grabbed with cookies. That is the less charitable interpretation. In reality a lot of sites that cater primarily to a US audience don't have the willingness or development time to try and comply with European regulations. Barring European visitors neatly solves that.
chris-orgmenta 3y ago
That ain't us.... kind of. That's the websites deciding to follow the letter of the law (or a spiteful, capitalist interpretation, taking it right to the line) instead of the spirit of the law. OK, unintended consequences of legislation. But those cookie banners are not mandated, exactly. They don't need to be there. It's the companies deciding to do it that way, so they can keep gobbling data. It's like if the building companies implemented the 2nd staircase, but only so they could measure who is going up and down it. Not for saving lives. If they were opt in, or unnecessary tracking wasn't implemented in the first place, then the banners could be elegant or gone. But I do agree that the legislation (especially the ultra focus on cookies specifically) was... blinkered & short sighted.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  No, that's entirely Europe. The outcome of the legislation was easy for anyone to see. As you say, it was blinkered and short-sighted. And I still have to click 20 popups away on mobile every day. If only a few websites had the banner, then maybe I'd blame those websites. But when they virtually all do, I blame the law.
  - drcongo 3y ago
    Just out of interest, you prefer to have your data harvested and sold?
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      How about: Don't harvest and sell my data, and don't show me a bunch of popups about exactly what data you can collect on me?
      - drcongo 3y ago
        That is of course the ideal, but what, you're just gonna trust them?
        3y ago
mandibles 3y ago
The year is 3157. Each time you access a new resource on the shared data substrate, you are required to accept something called a "Cookie." You have no idea what they are or why. Your crewmates say it has something to do with the homeworld, but you just shrug and prepare for the hyperspace jump.

How do you think we feel about cookie notices?

by cal5k 3y ago

How do you think we feel about cookie notices?

There is one solution for the cookie notices that is very seldomly talked about: just don't use any marketing cookies, then you don't need consent from the user :)

oblio 3y ago

Yes, housing and web cookies, equally important for one's life.

speeder 3y ago

Another European here: I think the law is fine. How companies, specially US companies react to it, that is not. 1. A ton of Health related websites in US refuse to work in Europe, because they are NOT willing to let you visit without sensitive data being grabbed with cookies. I truly do not understand how US people are ok with this. 2. The law says that you can't make hard to refuse cookies, yet many US-based sites I visit have shady, shady practices, for example many you have to click a button to see all the sliders for individual cookies, and when you click that button, it switches the orders of the buttons, so that the button you just clicked become "accept all", and the previous "accept all" button becomes "save current settings". Thus if you double click/tap by accident you accept all. 3. The sites that most often piss me off with shady cookie banner that tries its hardest to force you to opt-in to tracking, are ones that use a company called "Admiral", that according to LinkedIn is from Florida. https://www.linkedin.com/company/getadmiral/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/getadmiral/

rootusrootus 3y ago
> A ton of Health related websites in US refuse to work in Europe, because they are NOT willing to let you visit without sensitive data being grabbed with cookies. That is the less charitable interpretation. In reality a lot of sites that cater primarily to a US audience don't have the willingness or development time to try and comply with European regulations. Barring European visitors neatly solves that.

chris-orgmenta 3y ago

That ain't us.... kind of. That's the websites deciding to follow the letter of the law (or a spiteful, capitalist interpretation, taking it right to the line) instead of the spirit of the law. OK, unintended consequences of legislation. But those cookie banners are not mandated, exactly. They don't need to be there. It's the companies deciding to do it that way, so they can keep gobbling data. It's like if the building companies implemented the 2nd staircase, but only so they could measure who is going up and down it. Not for saving lives. If they were opt in, or unnecessary tracking wasn't implemented in the first place, then the banners could be elegant or gone. But I do agree that the legislation (especially the ultra focus on cookies specifically) was... blinkered & short sighted.

crazygringo 3y ago
No, that's entirely Europe. The outcome of the legislation was easy for anyone to see. As you say, it was blinkered and short-sighted. And I still have to click 20 popups away on mobile every day. If only a few websites had the banner, then maybe I'd blame those websites. But when they virtually all do, I blame the law.
- drcongo 3y ago
  Just out of interest, you prefer to have your data harvested and sold?
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    How about: Don't harvest and sell my data, and don't show me a bunch of popups about exactly what data you can collect on me?
    - drcongo 3y ago
      That is of course the ideal, but what, you're just gonna trust them?
      - 3y ago

mandibles 3y ago

The year is 3157. Each time you access a new resource on the shared data substrate, you are required to accept something called a "Cookie." You have no idea what they are or why. Your crewmates say it has something to do with the homeworld, but you just shrug and prepare for the hyperspace jump.