Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 2016, I think, there were 0 airplane crashes and 0 air travel fatalities. Across 200 countries, hundreds of airlines and several airplane manufacturers, probably thousands of airports, millions of flights. If you think that was an easy feat, then I don't know what to tell you. Do you know how it was achieved? With finely tuned and ruthlessly efficient bureaucracy. When people really care, bureaucracy works wonders…
"but it also prevents your pilot telling your copilot "Shut up!" just as the plane is about to crash into the mountain. " I am curious? How does regulation prevents that? (and how does it prevent a suicidal pilot, from locking out the co pilot and crashing in a mountain on purpose? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_pilot )
Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
151–160 of 457 posts
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would anyone consent to be tracked if given a real choice? What are the benefits? The 9% look like an error.
The same reason I enable telemetry in software I use - I want the system to be optimized for my usage pattern.
Except that tracking here is used for advertisment and not to give you a better service. Would you still accept it ?
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
"What are the benefits? " ? That the site exists in the first place ? Why is it so hard for people to do business math and these conversations on HN never have anything to do with material reality of the parties involved? It's understandable that we all want something for free - that's easy - but it's not understandable that we can't grasp how revenue is used to pay journalists etc.. We know they're all on the edge o…
Needing ad revenue and needing to track visitors are different things. Structurally obviously we are now in a situation where “well targeted ads” can generate some revenue, and “well behaved ads” barely can. The future has to be one where dumber ads pay more because tracking isn’t technically possible and/or illegal.
> The future has to be one where dumber ads pay more because tracking isn’t technically possible and/or illegal.
The other option is that everything ad supported goes out of business because the ROI on dumb ads is negative.
I don't want to sound like I know this for a fact, but I'd just like to point out that the future doesn't "have" to be anything. There are always multiple options.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#154I would say of 9% who gave consent the vast majority gave their consent through error, deceit or because they don't know what tracking really means and they wanted the service anyway.
Why not outright outlaw opt-out tracking and be done with this silly state of things?
There are legitimate uses of tracking and any company would still be able to provide it for the users, but you would have to have legally binding contract and opt in for the service.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
"What are the benefits? " ? That the site exists in the first place ? Why is it so hard for people to do business math and these conversations on HN never have anything to do with material reality of the parties involved? It's understandable that we all want something for free - that's easy - but it's not understandable that we can't grasp how revenue is used to pay journalists etc.. We know they're all on the edge o…
Needing ad revenue and needing to track visitors are different things. Structurally obviously we are now in a situation where “well targeted ads” can generate some revenue, and “well behaved ads” barely can. The future has to be one where dumber ads pay more because tracking isn’t technically possible and/or illegal.
"The future has to be one where dumber ads pay more because tracking isn’t technically possible and/or illegal."
So you're inching closer to the reality. Read your statement again though: where is this 'magical ad tech' that enables newsies to make a decent dolllar?
It's non existent.
Ergo, they are out of business and you get severely limited content.
So, either people can chose to share some basic information, pay, or get very little in return - that's the current 'business math'.
GDPR fails to take into consideration that math unfortunately.
A more progressive solution would be to create solutions not just legislation that doesn't actually change the dynamic.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not in the airline's interest because then the plane crashes and they lose a hundred million dollar plane and get sued and go bankrupt. It could be in an individual manager's interest because then they get a bonus and are working for some other company by the time the plane crashes, but the airline itself has the aforementioned incentive to put processes into place all on their own to prevent that from happeni…
Losing a brand new hundred million dollar aircraft is a huge hit. Losing a 50 year old aircraft is a different story, especially when the options are to retire it or keep flying. Further risking a crash when your airline is facing bankruptcy suddenly looks like a reasonable trade off. It’s not like a major airline is going to intentionally crash an airplane, but if they can trade 1 billion dollars for an extra crash…
> Losing a brand new hundred million dollar aircraft is a huge hit. Losing a 50 year old aircraft is a different story
A 50 year old aircraft still costs tens of millions, and the biggest cost of a crash is the lawsuits anyway.
> especially when the options are to retire it or keep flying.
50 year old planes fly all the time. The options aren't retire it or keep flying, they're maintain it properly or don't.
> Further risking a crash when your airline is facing bankruptcy suddenly looks like a reasonable trade off.
Which is where the insurance company comes in, and we're back to having an existing bureaucracy with an incentive to prevent that from happening.
> It’s not like a major airline is going to intentionally crash an airplane, but if they can trade 1 billion dollars for an extra crash every 20 years that’s a net financial benefit.
The value of a statistical life is generally regarded as being about ten million dollars. Times 300 passengers that's $3 billion. So that's how much they can expect to get sued for when the plane crashes, in addition to whatever the plane was worth. If they're "only" saving a billion dollars, they're losing money.
And if they could somehow save more than 3 billion dollars then that's what they're supposed to do -- at some point safety measures cost more than the value they provide and VSL calculations tell you where that is. (And if you don't think so then I assume you never travel by automobile or buy anything that has ever been in a truck.)
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#157Unless they do browser fingerprinting, the number will be overinflated by all the people like me who clear their cookies regularly, if not on every browser session, and are therefore re-asked consent on every single visit.
that should not matter, the obvious choice would be to ask every time until they say yes. It is also the simpler choice, if the user opts out of all tracking then you cannot track their choice.
1. opt out is not gdpr conform.
2. saving a cookie no_consent=true does not require consent by the user. that's the type of cookie easily classified as functional/necessary
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#158The author's consent form is very simple and isn't using any shady UX tricks to get the user to consent. One action will opt you in, one action will opt you out. I wonder what results you would see for something like yahoo, the daily mail, reddit, or other sites that heavily rely on ad revenue, which attempt to force the user to accept the cookies through non-obvious no buttons, or long processes to opt out of cookie…
> I wonder what results you would see for something like yahoo, the daily mail, reddit, or other sites that heavily rely on ad revenue, which attempt to force the user to accept the cookies through non-obvious no buttons, or long processes to opt out of cookies.
I wonder what's the best of shaming/reporting these examples and if an effective way exists[1]. If you have any ideas, sources, anything—please share.
GDPR consent screens are pure dark UX.
Yes, sometimes the information/actions are buried under a dozen of useless screens, but in some cases these changes are fairly subtle, like reversed the 'active' and 'inactive' states for Reject and Accept buttons on mobile, or things glitching, just a little bit. There's an obvious effort put into make things not only complicated, but also buggy.
So _fear, uncertainty and doubt_ all over again.
As someone who worked both on GDPR/Adtech/consent frameworks and privacy I still struggle to understand how some of these things are legal and what can we do to change it.
[1] Digression: Publisher pressure is one potential solution, but a limited one. Some premium publishers don't want to be associated with this kind of creepy UX. But, at the same time until we've completely killed cookie-driven behavioural targeting (and the alternatives, behavioural, not contextual) higher CPMs/ad revenue will keep the other publishers quiet. Ironically, behavioural targeting is mostly bullshit, and CMPs inflated, but that's a different story.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#159How cycnical - an article further down (Two young scientists built a $250M business using yeast to clean up wastewater) links to Forbes.com that indeed allows me to set my tracking preferences.However, anything other than 'accept' will result in a message stating 'we are processing the request this may take up to a few minutes'. So they can set hundreds (yeah - that is right, I have seen pages tell me they wanted 500…
All that stuff is gone if you block javascript on forbes.com
I’m rather shocked they allow viewing content without it.
Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked
#160The author's consent form is very simple and isn't using any shady UX tricks to get the user to consent. One action will opt you in, one action will opt you out. I wonder what results you would see for something like yahoo, the daily mail, reddit, or other sites that heavily rely on ad revenue, which attempt to force the user to accept the cookies through non-obvious no buttons, or long processes to opt out of cookie…
> I wonder what results you would see for something like yahoo, the daily mail, reddit, or other sites that heavily rely on ad revenue, which attempt to force the user to accept the cookies through non-obvious no buttons, or long processes to opt out of cookies. I wonder what's the best of shaming/reporting these examples and if an effective way exists[1]. If you have any ideas, sources, anything—please share. GDPR c…
It's not clear to me that the dark UX forms are legal.