Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

troyhunt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 509 posts

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#431

Post by flukus »

icedchai wrote: post #124
alkonaut wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to use external tracking and be GDPR-compliant, you must offer a clear choice ("yes/no") and you must not use pre-ticked boxes (i.e. an opt-out approach) Exactly this. Basically what the GDPR says is: if your business doesn't require the data, you cant use it without the user's consent. And data used for better advertising is NOT essential to e.g. a news site. What's more, the regulation syas that you c…

This is the view of a US person: These are private owned and operated web sites. The site owner determines what is "essential." If you do not agree to to the terms, do not use the site. If you don't want to be tracked for advertising, that's on you to install ad blockers.

If you went to a privately owned and operated restaurant do you think it should be up to them whether the follow health codes or not? Do you think a consenting adult should be allowed to eat at one that chooses not to follow them? Do you think this consent should be explicitly granted or will a sign in the corner of the menu suffice?

No matter your answer to those questions I think we can all agree that just because they are a privately owned and operated company they have the right to do whatever they want.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#432

Post by yspeak »

rdiddly wrote: post #300
plopz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So websites are supposed to just absorb the cost? That seems like a ridiculous stance.

If the cost is for hosting a bloated 14MB page, 30% of which is hostile JavaScript, let's talk about ridiculous. "But we need that JavaScript to scrape the data and run the ads to pay for hosting all that JavaScript!" My stance is even more ridiculous: Deadbeats who can't afford hosting without begging, selling ads, or turning against their users, scale your site down to something that's cheap to host, or get the hel…

Yes back to the 90s. I'm thinking actually 1993 or thereabouts. Gopher was great. No ads at all. Who needs them.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#433

Post by rjf72 »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #219
DavideNL wrote: post #128

In The Netherlands the Data Protection Authority announced this month that websites are no longer allowed to block access when people click "NO" in the cookie warning; Clicking 'no' should still allow people to view the website, but without placing any tracking cookies. Source (in Dutch): https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/nl/nieuws/websites-moe...

Hmm, there are features that one literally can't provide without state (cookies). I think the real problem here is that the technical feature of cookies providing browser state is a poor proxy for what EU/DPA _really_ wants to regulate, which is privacy-related tracking. There are tons of sites I've written which use cookies, but have no ads and perform no user-tracking whatsoever, not even Google Analytics. It is tr…

I'd distinguish between first and third party cookies.

Is there any legitimate and reasonably necessary purpose for third party cookies? And similarly is there any undesirably exploitative use of first party cookies? As I am not a web developer, these are not rhetorical questions.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#434

Post by yspeak »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #426
cortesoft wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are tons of websites that have other revenue models. Subscriptions, referral models, etc. Shouldn't people be able to choose what currency they want to pay for something in?

Contracts of adhesion don't lead to very good choice. And pretty much no site lets you choose what currency to pay in when it comes to ads. Realistically that would mean an option to pay a fraction of a penny per page. So 'choice' is already something that has failed in the free market. Bring on the privacy.

[dead]

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#435

Post by strken »

white-flame wrote: post #420
paulcole wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clicking 'no' should still allow people to view the website, but without placing any tracking cookies. No! It doesn't. Viewing a website isn't anyone's god-given right. The tracking cookies are part of the business model. If you don't agree with how a business makes money, stop patronizing them. If this is serious, look for companies to just block all traffic from The Netherlands. Why even bother dealing with the h…

Slavery and child labor were also just "part of the business model". Some business models are predatory societal negatives and should be done away with at a government level of respecting individual rights. Behind-the-scenes tracking and data brokering are in that class.

Slavery and child labour are coercive. Not letting you use a website is only coercive if that website is Facebook or Google or some other monopoly core to a person's ability to function in modern society. If you can't access Bob's Bargain Basement Underwear then you've got plenty of competitors to go to.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#438

Post by School-Cotton »

mafuy wrote: post #412
School-Cotton wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit to state the central point clearly at the top: why do you think restricting their range of possible choices "protects the poor and weak" ? If you have a shitty job, would you be better off getting fired? No, because presumably you already had the ability to quit. (Anticipating someone jumping on me for the analogy: I'm obviously not saying having a shitty job is equivalent to being in such dire straits that some…

From your reply I think you did not entirely understand the parent's reasoning. I think you don't follow the consequences of your points to the end, where it becomes visible that they are not desirable. I believe that is what the parent is aiming at.

Instead of just saying that it's obvious, it's visible, etc., can you explain the reasoning?

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#439

Post by yellowapple »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #428
yellowapple wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But those are fundamentally intertwined. If nobody's allowed to buy something, then how is anyone expected to be allowed to sell something? A purchase and sale are not independent events.

They are intertwined, but the morals of buying are a lot clearer. So what's your answer?

My answer is that if it can be sold, then it must be able to be bought. My right to sell my existence is meaningless without the right for others to buy it.

Amy attempt to assert otherwise - i.e. to try to sell something which nobody is allowed to buy - would be entrapment and - IMO - immoral. Either ban both sides or allow both sides; in this case, I'd vote the latter.

Post reply on HN