I almost always refuse to interact with the cookie banner, and continue using the site in its crippled state or leave. Even StackOverflow, I compensate by zooming out. If I really need the info and the banner is really in the way, I use element zapper. Fuck cookie banners.
People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
181–190 of 265 posts
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#182I've recently started just relying on adblocking, and just agreeing. Its such a battle to keep the info up.
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#183I do one of those:
- obtuse cookie consent, where it hides everything and does a redirect - I don't bother: I'll close the tab
- quite easy to see "I agree", no easy way to reject things - depending on my mood or how much I feel the need to get the thing I want from this particular site, in order of probability: click agree, close the tab, do not click anything (try to see around the popover or remove it via inspector), search for a way to reject
- easy to see a rejection button - click the button or close the tab if the popover seems too excessive anyway
The reason I agree to any tracking is my belief I'm pretty safe with using uBlock Origin on Firefox, clearing cookies somewhat regularly and using first party isolation option of Firefox, also I use Tab Containers for important stuff. Maybe it doesn't cover me fully. Most sites I visit daily I could certainly do without.
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft pulled an Apple and turned DNT into opt-in. Advertisers were very clear that they would only honor DNT if it people were tracked by default. The EU then passed a bill that said you can't collect data unless it's for one of six reasons, one of which is "user consent". This basically mandated opt-in, so everyone went super-aggressive on consent banners (which, BTW, are probably illegal).
Consent popups are legal so long as agreeing is not easier than disagreeing. Iow, you cannot make it harder to disagree - which 99.95% of them do.
Seems like a good case for a class action suit. Why hasn't this happened yet?
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#185>those in charge of the cookie banners really believe that they protect the interests of the user No, they're asking for consent to track because the EU demanded it. The easiest way to avoid having a banner on your site is to... just not have an analytics package on your site. They're aggressive because they don't want their data spigot turned off - hence the work-to-rule nonsense. You should not infer any benevolenc…
At this point, I'd be happy with a service that has my browser send a "do not track" header on each request, and also open a proxy connection to a black hat server each time the page decided to make a request to a known tracking domain.
A "black hat server"?
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#186>those in charge of the cookie banners really believe that they protect the interests of the user No, they're asking for consent to track because the EU demanded it. The easiest way to avoid having a banner on your site is to... just not have an analytics package on your site. They're aggressive because they don't want their data spigot turned off - hence the work-to-rule nonsense. You should not infer any benevolenc…
> hence the work-to-rule nonsense
It's not even work-to-rule. It's illegal if the button to refuse consent is in any way less obvious than the button to grant it, which it nearly always is.
Notably, OneTrust, which provides a lot of the banner solutions which are illegal gets it right on their own website. So they do know the rules, but they knowingly provide a solution that's illegal.
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#187> those in charge of the cookie banners really believe that they protect the interests of the user
As other commenters have pointed out, these are mostly legal requirements. In most cases, the user would be better off with no banner and less cookies.
> What can they choose but "agree to everything" or look at some gray text through a gray overlay?
You can leave the website. The intrusiveness of these banners correlates negatively with the quality of what you're trying to read, so in most cases it's a good reminder that you shouldn't even be on this website to begin with. In the rare cases where you do need the content, tools such as uBlock Origin can still help make it for this one time. Contrary to other commenters here, if a website is bad enough that I need to do that on a regular basis, I just stop visiting the website.
> There are definitely people in the HN crowd who can understand the different options offered by cookie banners.
You're assuming it's worth anybody's time to even read these. It's not.
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#188I figure (perhaps too optimistically) that if enough people say to turn the cookies off, they will eventually decide it is better to just leave them off and get rid of the decision banner.
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#1891. Cookie AutoDelete
2. I Don't Care About Cookies
Re: People who press on cookie banners anything except “agree” – why do you do that?
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preach! What we ultimately need is just a law that says it is illegal for companies to collect or store any data for marketing purposes, tracking, or resale. No opt ins, no exceptions. Unfortunately we can't fully kill targeted or unsolicited advertising at the root because of freedom of speech issues, but we can eliminate all the data it depends on.
why do you dislike targeted advertising?
People see "targeted advertising" as "I was thinking about buying a bike and it shows me ads for bikes", ie. it's showing me what I want to see. That is not targeted advertising. Targeted advertising is showing you what they want you to see when they want you to see it, or showing you the same products in a light that makes you more likely to buy them.
For example, showing you unlikely or imagined bike-related problems, to sell you useless protection gear or insurance after you get your bike. Showing you ads for motorcycles, because although you probably don't want one, someone who already likes bikes is more likely to buy a (more expensive) motorcycle, so that's where they'll direct their spam.
Targeted advertising is about manipulation, using knowledge of the customer to change their behavior. No one is going through those efforts to show you what you already want and save you a quick Google.