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

501–509 of 509 posts

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#501

Post by brylie »

white-flame wrote: post #451
dmortin wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The site generates revenue by providing a service. That's why people visit it and that generates the revenue via ads. E.g. an independent news site provides news articles and people visit it. People won't pay for many small sites separately, so until we have a viable alternative (e.g. automatic micropayments) eliminating targeted ads would effectively eliminate independent journalism as well (regular ads pay much les…

The site does NOT directly generate revenue by providing a service to their visitors, nor even by selling space to advertisers. The site generates revenue by selling to 3rd parties intimate access to its visitors without the knowledge or consent of the "average" visitor. It is broken in principle, running afoul of the nature of marketplace regulation and privacy rights. This is just "the ends justify the means", beca…

I, for one, am actively boycotting sites with invasive tracking technology. To a certain extent, I rely on Hacker News discussion to get the essence of many articles, even on prominent publications, where cinsenting to tracking technology is necessary to read the article. As soon as I see a tracking consent dialogue, I will often leave, and actiively avoid sites that I already know use tracker network tech.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#502

Post by collinmanderson »

astura wrote: post #461
nearbuy wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually sounds pretty good if you don't have much money. Free food in exchange for agreeing to receive free scrap paper.

I'd totally use this service if it existed.

It exists http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/shiru-cafs-offer-stud...

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#503

Post by kmlx »

dmitriid wrote: post #479
kmlx wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the US government can literally take your life, imprison you, etc. techcrunch just wants to sell you stuff. there’s really no comparison.

So, the arbitrary line is drawn at “someone can imprison you”. And no, it’s not TechCrunch who’s getting all that data.

the impact of 300 trackers is less than the impact of your government tracking you.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#504

Post by wsy »

yellowapple wrote: post #499
wsy wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me try to repeat your argument: whenever something is morally allowed for an individual, the moral system must ensure that the individual actually can do it. This does not stand on its own, you need to provide a good argument why a moral system should be designed such that everything which is allowed can also actually be done. In particular, because our current system is not designed that way. And even if you fin…

"whenever something is morally allowed for an individual, the moral system must ensure that the individual actually can do it" More like "whenever one of an inherently-coupled pair of actions is morally allowed, the other of those actions is morally allowed". A moral system which allows one and not the other is self-contradictory. In this case, a moral system which permits the right to sell a life but denies the righ…

> "whenever one of an inherently-coupled pair of actions is morally allowed, the other of those actions is morally allowed".

Why does that follow? I could understand it for actions you are morally obliged to do, but I fail to see why it follows for actions which are merely allowed.

A 6-year old boy is allowed to fall in love with his teacher, but she is not allowed to fall in love with him, so his love - even though morally allowed - can never be fulfilled. That is a perfectly fine situation, from a moral point of view.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#505

Post by icedchai »

mafuy wrote: post #408
Mirioron wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With data on web sites, it's the same. Almost every web site collects data. You don't realistically have the option of going to a different news site if you don't like that deal. You have plenty of choice: make your own, feed them wrong information, feed them no information or find a site that doesn't. If enough people care about this niche then your website would succeed.

I don't agree. None of these is a real option. - I cannot just make a website or service. It is usually a huge project that only few people can solve. - I have no way to feed wrong information without diving very deep into that website's code. We are not just talking about data I enter, also about things that are collected without conscious effort on my part. It is not practical at all to feed false or no information…

Use a VPN, sign up with a fake name, always browse in private mode, or regularly delete cookies. This will minimize your foot print.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#506

Post by yellowapple »

wsy wrote: post #504
yellowapple wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"whenever something is morally allowed for an individual, the moral system must ensure that the individual actually can do it" More like "whenever one of an inherently-coupled pair of actions is morally allowed, the other of those actions is morally allowed". A moral system which allows one and not the other is self-contradictory. In this case, a moral system which permits the right to sell a life but denies the righ…

> "whenever one of an inherently-coupled pair of actions is morally allowed, the other of those actions is morally allowed". Why does that follow? I could understand it for actions you are morally obliged to do, but I fail to see why it follows for actions which are merely allowed . A 6-year old boy is allowed to fall in love with his teacher, but she is not allowed to fall in love with him, so his love - even though…

A 6-year-old is not capable of informed consent. A 60-year-old man is.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#507

Post by wsy »

yellowapple wrote: post #506
wsy wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "whenever one of an inherently-coupled pair of actions is morally allowed, the other of those actions is morally allowed". Why does that follow? I could understand it for actions you are morally obliged to do, but I fail to see why it follows for actions which are merely allowed . A 6-year old boy is allowed to fall in love with his teacher, but she is not allowed to fall in love with him, so his love - even though…

A 6-year-old is not capable of informed consent. A 60-year-old man is.

Now you are discussing another topic.

Re: Cookie Warning Shenanigans Have Got to Stop

#509

Post by akubera »

oliv__ wrote: post #508
icebraining wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We as sovereign citizens of the EU decided it was so.

That doesn't make it a fundamental right.

What, to you, makes something a fundamental right?

The EU's document is "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European_Union"[0], which does grant privacy as one. That pretty clearly does make it a "fundamental right".

Note the US Constitution's Bill of Rights does not offer right-to-privacy (but the 4th provides protection from searches-and-seizures without probable cause, which really doesn't deal with "privacy", especially from non-governmental actors).

Perhaps parent should have said "fundamental right granted by the EU", but in this context it's pretty clear.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_...

Post reply on HN