Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked • Hacker News Board

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#421

Post by gmantg » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 8:31 PM UTC

shmageggy wrote: post #5

davidweatherall wrote: post #2

The 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…

Verizon/Yahoo/Techcrunch is such a blatant offender, and especially noticable because they get posted here often. Their modal is a giant obfuscation dark-pattern, and far as I can tell, there is no way to opt out.

I couldn't get Verizon site to show me the cookie banner. I guess the banner code lives on another domain that my uBO blocked.

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#422

Post by Shared404 » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 8:53 PM UTC

"On the lifestyle site, three permissions were being asked for. Web statistics (Google Analytics), personalized advertising (Doubleclick) and social media sharing (Pinterest).

Only 1 person out of the 774 who opted into being tracked drilled down and made a more granular choice. That visitor said no to stats but said yes to advertising and social media."

This seems weird to me. Why would you block google from getting the statistics, and then give it to them anyways via doubleclick?

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#423

Post by notJim » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #93

davidweatherall wrote: post #2

The 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…

Why would anyone consent to be tracked if given a real choice? What are the benefits? The 9% look like an error.

I honestly kind of like getting instagram ads relevant to my interests. Right now I'm getting a lot of solar charge controllers.

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#424

Post by JulianWasTaken » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

jaekash wrote: post #404

JulianWasTaken wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is nice in theory, except the amount of fragmentation in 2020 is huge. The average user simply cannot switch browsers. The likelihood of encountering a website that breaks even switching from Chrome to Firefox is too much for any normal user to want to bother for just these purposes. They'll switch back the minute they find a website that doesn't work in their new browser, if they even get that far. So unless yo…

> This is nice in theory, except the amount of fragmentation in 2020 is huge. The GDPR popups is not nice in theory or practice.

I think everyone agrees with this, and is now at the "what are we going to do about it" phase.

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#425

Post by black_puppydog » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

distances wrote: post #415

Nasrudith wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But privacy isn't like food, fire or travel safety. Even assuming absolute cynicism it isn't very exploitable for them to use it for bad purposes. I liken the difference between actors to a housecat and a large dog with a lamb. The cat at worst could give some scratches but at worst would probably just annoy the lamb jumping into its wool and kneading it. The dog ideally would look after tbe lamb but could also infli…

I think your allegory falls short: the government isn't in this scenario collecting the data, but rather reining in the data collection of private entities. The end result is less data collected instead of the same data in different hands.

Thank you for expressing so clearly what I was struggling to say. :)

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#426

Post by mikestew » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

chrisacky wrote: post #30

I signed up for a new account on a fitness website yesterday. They track health and food and diet you enter. anyway, during the sign up they had a opt out, I chose to do just that, however the opt out process then took over the screen with a modal window, which gave a loading bar and took about thirty seconds to complete... But guess what... There was a big CANCEL button. I couldn't perform any action during sign up…

In fairness, when I went to that site as an experiment, it did eventually appear to save my preferences. And in more fairness, go look at the list of cookies and especially under advertising. Yeah, that's a lot fucking bigger than it should be, and a minority allow opting out. But imagine the implementation in your head: you've probably got to make some web call (REST, WebSocket, whatever) for each one of those.

In summary, I could see how that might take a minute or two without a requirement for evil.

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#427

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

rhn_mk1 wrote: post #350

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they're not. That's what they're supposed to get. If courts don't actually give families that then the problem is in the court system, not the company.

It doesn't matter where the problem lies. The value courts assign to life informs the airline when they estimate how much they would lose due to a crash.

It matters where the problem lies if you want to fix it.

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#428

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

dageshi wrote: post #176

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's too late. What do you say we try it and find out? > So the moment you run into a paywall you will turn around and start searching for the same thing you were just looking for but for free. Because the existing paywalls are some nonsense where you have to give them your home address and sign up to pay a recurring monthly fee which you know is going to be a bear to cancel and costs dollars rather than cents, whe…

People have been talking about this idea for maybe 20 years (that I can recall). I'm also pretty sure there've been numerous attempts at implementations because really it's not that complicated a thing to make. None of them caught on though because when it comes down to it, most sites that successfully make money can probably make more money from advertising than they can from this microtransaction system so there's…

None of them caught on because the regulatory environment makes it effectively impossible to implement efficiently and all of the attempts had to make fatal compromises in order to comply which made them useless.

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#429

Post by akvadrako » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 9:53 PM UTC

oregontechninja wrote: post #201

One click opt out should be mandatory. It's obviously unscrupulous to force you to go through several pages of text when I could've clicked one button. Most the time I just use a special blocker script or reader mode.

Under GDPR it essentially is mandatory, or at least it can't be more cumbersome to opt-out then opt-in, and most websites will want a one-button opt-in.

It's just not well enforced yet.

Re: Only 9% of visitors give GDPR consent to be tracked

#430

Post by m463 » Tue, Jul 07, 2020, 9:53 PM UTC

notJim wrote: post #423

bambax wrote: post #93

Earlier 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.

I honestly kind of like getting instagram ads relevant to my interests. Right now I'm getting a lot of solar charge controllers.

But that's not how advertising normally works.

They don't want peanuts from solar charge controller companies, they want big money from say political campaigns whose ads or news articles will read " wants to defund solar" or " loves solar".