261–270 of 272 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because Google owns the largest browser. The problem could only be solved politically.
No, that proves the problem could not be solved politically, because regulators lacked the political power needed to regulate google
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The incessant "think of the small businesses" is becoming the new "think of the children". It's easier for small businesses to comply with GDPR.
This is hilariously wrong. Small companies have less code and complexity but don't have internal resources specialised in law, security and web development available to fix things. They usually also don't have the money to bring outsiders to do it for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that proves the problem could not be solved politically, because regulators lacked the political power needed to regulate google
But GDPR was their way of regulating Google. It is not perfect but it was a huge step in the right direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't you failing to account for the following? In theory, website owners could do as GitHub did and remove inessential cookies and get rid of annoying banners: https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/ But in practice, website owners are worried about breaking laws and aren't experts and just follow what they see everyone else doing, and so put up banners. So in practice, the regulations are indeed the ulti…
I would argue that's the entire point of the OP. It's not the EU that's causing the fear of breaking laws. It's the ad tech industry that is instilling that fear by fostering the "you need a cookie banner on your site now" FUD. If Joe Schmoe thinks he needs a cookie banner for doing nothing and puts one up, then from a user's perspective, all sites are equally bad. Compare with "Ask App Not to Track" in iOS, which is…
Cookies invade privacy, cookie prompts invade both privacy and attention.
Is the purpose of the prompt itself not to invade your attention to make a decision on whether you want them or not? Likewise, how does the prompt invade your privacy if you don't act upon it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "my house, my rules" A website is in no way "your house".
Why not? Essentially, if I build and host a hobby site, it's my digital property. You have the right to see what are the conditions to visit (essentially: fetch) it and if you don't agree, you are free to go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they are not good in any way. Imagine you have to press buttons whenever you start your car and have to give promises you are not going to go above the speed limit... It's just plain NONSENSE. This consent madness should be implemented in the browser. You set it once, and then you just forget about it. Poof, problem gone. If
It was in the browser (still is?) called DNT, and it didn't work because the industry ignored, circumvented and even actively opposed it. Your idea has been tried and was found to not work.
If you really cared about customer privacy you’d make a rule that allowed me to set my privacy setting in my browser and require the sites to respect it. And one of the options better be “none ever, just do what you can without it”
What moron thought the current rules were sane? What a useless waste of air to defend an obviously broken and constantly annoying and useless rule.
In conclusion a four year old could have come up with a better rule. So stop whining about people’s legitimate objections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was in the browser (still is?) called DNT, and it didn't work because the industry ignored, circumvented and even actively opposed it. Your idea has been tried and was found to not work.
Nah, it should be like notifications. You can set a global block on those. Same should apply to these cookie consent things. You set what you want to keep and enjoy a popup free web.