Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Where did all the “reject” buttons come from?

noyb.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 127 posts

Re: Where did all the “reject” buttons come from?

#91

Post by Nextgrid »

happymellon wrote: post #60
stoltzmann wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just remove cookie banners unless you’re using an ad network You also need a cookie banner in EU in case your website uses any cookies that are not necessary to serve the content. This includes analytics, telemetry, and so on. It's not only ads. You can remove the cookie banner if your website uses cookies only for required functionality like log-on.

You can have all those things without cookies. And you will need consent, because it has nothing to do with cookies. You need a telemetry banner.

Or you just don't use telemetry?

Re: Where did all the “reject” buttons come from?

#92

Post by krfsm »

anonbrowser wrote: post #80

I read 90% of the comments on this and everyone seems unanimously onboard with these annoying banners. The claim is they save the web. I can’t be the only one that feels these banners are destroying the web experience. There has to be a better way to improve privacy without simultaneously nuking user experience.

Improved privacy without bad UX is super simple: Have privacy by default, and don't use personal information for things which the user hasn't asked for.

But the metrics/tracking crowd - especially the ad vendors - hate that, and they are more important to most companies/websites than the users.

(It also limits what methods you can use for site improvement, so it's a bit inconvenient for you too.)

Re: Where did all the “reject” buttons come from?

#93

Post by Macha »

anonbrowser wrote: post #80

I read 90% of the comments on this and everyone seems unanimously onboard with these annoying banners. The claim is they save the web. I can’t be the only one that feels these banners are destroying the web experience. There has to be a better way to improve privacy without simultaneously nuking user experience.

I think you're actually running into and mixing up two opposing requirements:

1. Those who support the tracking and see the banners an imposition of the law. They may come across as supporting the banners because they feel companies should be allowed require customers agree to this, though ultimately they'd rather no banners and to just track as done in the wild west days.

2. Those who support the privacy legislation and feel users should be able to prevent tracking and see the banners as dark pattern coercion so companies can claim compliance. They may come across as supporting the banners because of their stance that companies shouldn't track by default, but ultimately they'd rather there are no banners and either:

(2a) companies just deal with the resulting non-viability of privacy invading business models

(2b) advertising returns to a less privacy invading model as its a zero sum game so if everyone is tracking then you feel you must, but if no one is then advertisers have proven their willingness to accept less invasive models in other fields where more intrusive models are already infeasible (broadcast TV ads aren't yet trying to determine who specifically is watching, the viewability rates of "the side of a bus" must be miniscule compared to web ads, etc.)

Re: Where did all the “reject” buttons come from?

#94

Post by Nextgrid »

rawfan wrote: post #35
the_gipsy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Analytics also require consent. There are some non-mainstream solution that promise that no consent is required, but you better make sure with a lawyer. Sadly, every marketing person and their dog insist on having analytics. Even more sadly, every product person is not capable on putting their foot down against an obviously bad cookie banner UX.

Fathom Analytics is quite fool proof. No cookies (hence no consent) required, completely anonymized data that still identifies unique visitors and provided valuable analytics.

> completely anonymized data that still identifies unique visitors

That's an oxymoron. If your "completely anonymized data" is unique enough to reidentify unique visitors with reasonable probability then it isn't "completely anonymized" - it's pseudonymous.

That's the problem with all these supposedly GDPR-compliant analytics things - the GDPR outlaws analytics without consent (there's no case law whether it would fall under legitimate interest, but I doubt it), there's no way around it. It doesn't matter what technical means you use (whether cookies, fingerprinting, or a crystal ball) - if your analytics "work" in the sense that you can tell unique users apart, then you are in breach because you are effectively collecting/computing and storing some sort of identifier that can reidentify a user with reasonable accuracy.

Re: Where did all the “reject” buttons come from?

#95

Post by Nextgrid »

ketzu wrote: post #43
fredsted wrote: post #4

The EU cookie legislation was a mistake made by tech-illiterate bureaucrats that ruined the Web to a large degree. It's something that could've been built in to the browser. I have a hard time understanding why one would dedicate their time to this.

The part I find funny about people calling the bureaucrats tech illiterate, is so many users on tech forums are illiterate on the topic themseleves, e.g., believing deleting cookies is a solution to tracking.

This is probably the second biggest win by the spyware industry, the first being making spyware effectively legal (by virtue of lack of enforcement - which persists even today with the GDPR) and socially-acceptable to begin with. They've now managed to convince a significant chunk of tech people that merely deleting cookies is totally enough to defeat tracking.

Re: Where did all the “reject” buttons come from?

#96

Post by lupire »

asymmetric wrote: post #65
isaacfrond wrote: post #7

I've set my browser to delete cookies at close. You can accept all cookies without problem, and after lunch everything is forgotten. A few websites that I go to often get special treatment (Hacker News!), because I'm to lazy to press ok each time.

In addition to the problems mentioned by siblings, this also sends the wrong message: you're signaling to the website owners that you're OK with tracking (or that you don't care, which is the same).

They don't care what you think, they care how much exploitable data they get.

Re: Where did all the “reject” buttons come from?

#97

Post by lupire »

d12bb wrote: post #31
isaacfrond wrote: post #7

I've set my browser to delete cookies at close. You can accept all cookies without problem, and after lunch everything is forgotten. A few websites that I go to often get special treatment (Hacker News!), because I'm to lazy to press ok each time.

That would mean they get deleted every few months when an OS update forces me to reboot only. Why would I ever close my browser?

Because you'd restart to clear cookies. Why wouldn't you? You don't lose anything when windows reopen, and you recover some leaked memory.

Re: Where did all the “reject” buttons come from?

#98

Post by lupire »

itake wrote: post #47
d12bb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would mean they get deleted every few months when an OS update forces me to reboot only. Why would I ever close my browser?

I reboot my browser weekly to service browser security patches.

What browser has weeks security holes?

Re: Where did all the “reject” buttons come from?

#99

Post by mschuster91 »

tpxl wrote: post #68
mschuster91 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tracking is not, and will never be, a legitimate business. The problem is, the way the Internet and its services are financed, it is pretty much a requirement. A lot of services absolutely depend on advertising revenue because affordable micro-transactions still are not a thing, not to mention 20 years of cultural ingrainment that services on the Internet have to be free when they are aimed at the general public. T…

> The problem is, the way the Internet and its services are financed, it is pretty much a requirement. A bad business model doesn't mean you get to ignore the law.

A key part is that, while the GDPR undoubtedly is a good piece of law, it got introduced without a public debate on how the Internet should actually work and be funded.

Basically, GDPR kneecapped the entire business model of everyone but Wikipedia, and almost no thought was spared on how to replace that and make the Internet a better place for everyone.

Re: Where did all the “reject” buttons come from?

#100

Post by npteljes »

anonbrowser wrote: post #80

I read 90% of the comments on this and everyone seems unanimously onboard with these annoying banners. The claim is they save the web. I can’t be the only one that feels these banners are destroying the web experience. There has to be a better way to improve privacy without simultaneously nuking user experience.

The issue is, you cannot improve privacy, while keeping the ad dollar flowing. And so, websites annoy you to hell with their banners. The way would be to make web advertisement unprofitable, or to outlaw them. As I don't see either happening, what will happen is clear: websites will annoy as long as people don't go away because of it - same with every other power struggle ever.
Post reply on HN