7 ms·

Again, from the perspective of users, the experience got worse post-regulation. > The experience you describe is the fault of websites which chose to make thin

by raydev 3y ago

Again, from the perspective of users, the experience got worse post-regulation. > The experience you describe is the fault of websites which chose to make things that way. I don't disagree. But they were less annoying before. So make them go back to being less annoying.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
Again, from the perspective of users, the experience got worse only after websites decided for themselves to add annoying cookie banners. Not after the regulation. > make them go back to being less annoying That is a request between you and them (the websites), unless you're talking about legislating a banner-less opt-out, or maybe just willing to file a complaint against the website with a data protection authority, if the banner is already illegally annoying. Websites have the right to annoy their users with cookie popups, with or without the GDPR (ironically , the GDPR actually has some protections here, websites simply break the law). Unfortunately, it seems many are choosing to exercise that right because they make money doing so.
rstuart4133 3y ago
> Again, from the perspective of users, the experience got worse post-regulation. Your right, the experience got worse. But the underlying point is there two ways this could have gone. The GDPR simply mandated that if companies track you they have to get your informed consent. So one way it could have gone is companies didn't track anonymous users. Notice this doesn't apply to non-anonymous users. By definition once you've logged in you've revealed who are and agreed to a far more onerous privacy statement. So one way companies could comply is just to make you log in to see some content (and track you that way), and not bug you otherwise. But they didn't go that way. They insist on tracking you regardless. Perhaps you don't agree, but I find this even more annoying because I install tracking blocking extensions and that breaks some sites. To me the world would have been a much better place if they had just gone along with the intent of the damned law and not tracked people who are try to remain anonymous. To be fair it's not so bad. Firefox dismisses the cookie banners for you [0], and I have extensions that block the worst of their effects. If you are using a browser from an ad company and are complaining about cookie banners (which almost to the man use a deceptive UI to encourage you to accept them all so the ads work better), then I don't have a lot of sympathy. Me rejecting as many cookies as I can then blocking their trackers the worst possible outcome for the web sites trying to garner some ad revenue of course, but shrug, the industry could have acted in good faith, and didn't. [0] https://community.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/firefox-cookie-banner-handling/ https://community.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/firefox-cookie-ba...

by raydev 3y ago

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

Again, from the perspective of users, the experience got worse only after websites decided for themselves to add annoying cookie banners. Not after the regulation. > make them go back to being less annoying That is a request between you and them (the websites), unless you're talking about legislating a banner-less opt-out, or maybe just willing to file a complaint against the website with a data protection authority, if the banner is already illegally annoying. Websites have the right to annoy their users with cookie popups, with or without the GDPR (ironically , the GDPR actually has some protections here, websites simply break the law). Unfortunately, it seems many are choosing to exercise that right because they make money doing so.

rstuart4133 3y ago

> Again, from the perspective of users, the experience got worse post-regulation. Your right, the experience got worse. But the underlying point is there two ways this could have gone. The GDPR simply mandated that if companies track you they have to get your informed consent. So one way it could have gone is companies didn't track anonymous users. Notice this doesn't apply to non-anonymous users. By definition once you've logged in you've revealed who are and agreed to a far more onerous privacy statement. So one way companies could comply is just to make you log in to see some content (and track you that way), and not bug you otherwise. But they didn't go that way. They insist on tracking you regardless. Perhaps you don't agree, but I find this even more annoying because I install tracking blocking extensions and that breaks some sites. To me the world would have been a much better place if they had just gone along with the intent of the damned law and not tracked people who are try to remain anonymous. To be fair it's not so bad. Firefox dismisses the cookie banners for you [0], and I have extensions that block the worst of their effects. If you are using a browser from an ad company and are complaining about cookie banners (which almost to the man use a deceptive UI to encourage you to accept them all so the ads work better), then I don't have a lot of sympathy. Me rejecting as many cookies as I can then blocking their trackers the worst possible outcome for the web sites trying to garner some ad revenue of course, but shrug, the industry could have acted in good faith, and didn't. [0] https://community.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/firefox-cookie-banner-handling/ https://community.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/firefox-cookie-ba...