121–130 of 177 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the worst offenders just have a simple “we use cookies” banner; the ones that give you the most choice are often more intrusive.
The best are ones which just give reject all cookies option (of course they still use strictly functional cookies). And I always thought that is how it should be, both extremes should be equally easy to choose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the worst offenders just have a simple “we use cookies” banner; the ones that give you the most choice are often more intrusive.
The best are ones which just give reject all cookies option (of course they still use strictly functional cookies). And I always thought that is how it should be, both extremes should be equally easy to choose.
One issue I do see with GDPR (or its consequences) is that a market participant that only sets those strictly necessary cookies actually now gets viewed by some as iffy, because they don't ask for consent.
Basically, the industry standard of treating users (paying or not) like shit has normalized this sort of abuse/harassment so much that "the good ones" stick out in a bad way.
None of which is meant to discredit GDPR though. If anything, I'm looking forward to more case law like from last year in Germany, where a dark-patterned cookie banner was ruled to be so misleading that it didn't constitute informed consent anymore.
The GDPR is lacking enforcement, if anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many sites ruin your experience because they don't know any better. GDPR is perceived as a Sword of Damocles by many smaller and medium sized companies and they will annoy you with elaborate consent solution for which they are paying a ton of money even if they most probably wouldn't need to do it. For the big players it is easy. They often don't annoy you with consent banners because: - they have legal departments t…
> they don't know any better There is a ton of literature about how it should be done, there has been enough press for anyone to be aware that it's a serious subject that needs to be studied, and small companies will often consult with external legal advisors because they can't afford to get on the wrong side of the law on this aspect. I've participated to a ton of these discussions in small and big entities, basical…
Companies relying on information from literature, the press and from external advisors is part of the problem.
All these parties often have motivations that are not necessarily 100% aligned with their clients. In the best case they are just overcautious because they don't enjoy the same protection as lawyers. In the worst case they sell GDPR products or profit indirectly from the sale of these products.
All that most companies need is advice from a lawyer that understands GDPR and acts in their best interest. That alone would kill a good deal of cookie banners.
As I click my 10,000th cookie modal to read this article, I am forced to ask if this legislation has made my web experience better in any way, to which the answer is a resounding no. I understand the importance of it, but please prioritise revising its shortcomings rather than doubling down on being the most tech-hostile region in the developed world.
Dark patterns, web wide tracking, anti-consumer features. vendor lock-in, you name it are all over the place and common practice and not there to help/protect consumers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Honestly Google should have just boycotted Europe for a week and seen how well everyone handles not having gmail, google, or anything. I think the EU would have loved that. There are perfectly viable alternatives to pretty much everything that Google offers, some of which created in Europe. They just never gain any traction because it's convenient to just use Google for everything. I still use Gmail and Google Cale…
> I think the EU would have loved that. "The EU" entirely depended on Google not doing that. And by that I mean the bureaucracy and other apparatjik - not the people. Had Google literally banned Europe the backlash would be large, large, large against 'the EU' from people who live there and were trying to live and do their day to day online activities. Yeah, it'd be Evil, but sometimes companies should really swing b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the worst offenders just have a simple “we use cookies” banner; the ones that give you the most choice are often more intrusive.
The best are ones which just give reject all cookies option (of course they still use strictly functional cookies). And I always thought that is how it should be, both extremes should be equally easy to choose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As clear as can be yes. Now you know which websites are willing to absolutely ruin your experience just to abuse you. The implications can be seen pretty much everywhere in society, it is a momentous step in the right direction.
How so? Almost every single one uses cookies and I press I agree anyway because otherwise I'll be off more than half the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But he is right. Why not just fix this at a policy level? While paying low tax seems morally wrong, the job of a company is to do good for itself, because they all are responsible to their shareholders. Google left China on moral grounds in 2000s. Did that make other companies follow suit? No. Apple had no problem censoring or using workers in exploitative conditions to eke out more profits. Did Apple's products get…
Viewing a company as responsible only to it's shareholders is perspective only proposed and adopted in the last 50/60 years (maybe less), and I believe, a flawed one. Historically, businesses were understood to also have responsibility to their communities and customers. Also their workers, though perhaps that began to shed somewhat less recently. In my view, any person or entity is morally responsible for their impa…
Agreed but what can few individuals even do when masses don't even care? We can try to use our privacy sensitive platforms and modular phones with open OSs but that will not really change anything. If my past experience has anything to go by, all it will do is, we will get shafted by overpaying for substandard experience.
I hate to sound defeatist but unless there can be a change in mainstream consciousness about it, it is mostly a lost cause.
As I click my 10,000th cookie modal to read this article, I am forced to ask if this legislation has made my web experience better in any way, to which the answer is a resounding no. I understand the importance of it, but please prioritise revising its shortcomings rather than doubling down on being the most tech-hostile region in the developed world.
I see this mindset a lot but I don't really get it. You'd rather blame the legislation for forcing the websites to disclose all the tracking that they do instead of blaming the websites for tracking you in the first place? I'm very happy that I can at least click "say no to all" when I get to a new website. Hopefully if enough people do that, they'll realize that the current approach is counterproductive and switch t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But he is right. Why not just fix this at a policy level? While paying low tax seems morally wrong, the job of a company is to do good for itself, because they all are responsible to their shareholders. Google left China on moral grounds in 2000s. Did that make other companies follow suit? No. Apple had no problem censoring or using workers in exploitative conditions to eke out more profits. Did Apple's products get…
> Why not just fix this at a policy level? Because the "Big evil foreign tech giants" aren't the only ones to use these clauses in the tax code. But it's fashionable to bash on them. So you keep the votes and your corporate friends.