Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law
amazingcto.com
Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law
1–10 of 662 posts
Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law
#2The funny thing about legislation is that you're responsible for the unintended consequences of your laws too.
Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law
#3The funny thing about legislation is that you're responsible for the unintended consequences of your laws too.
It's impossible to foresee everything, including the amount of malicious compliance.
In the end we are better off with this legislation and its future iterations and additions than we are without it. The extent to which people's data is misused is simply ridiculous.
Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law
#4Dumb take. “Just run your business with 10% of the revenue? What’s the problem?”
Edit: to those downvoting, yea, it’s agreed that tracking is bad but the tone of the article completely ignores that a lot of the web’s content depends on this model so if it “just didn’t track” a large swath would no longer exist.
Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law
#5The funny thing about legislation is that you're responsible for the unintended consequences of your laws too.
It's impossible to foresee everything, including the amount of malicious compliance. In the end we are better off with this legislation and its future iterations and additions than we are without it. The extent to which people's data is misused is simply ridiculous.
Though this was 100% predictable
Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law
#6The funny thing about legislation is that you're responsible for the unintended consequences of your laws too.
It's impossible to foresee everything, including the amount of malicious compliance. In the end we are better off with this legislation and its future iterations and additions than we are without it. The extent to which people's data is misused is simply ridiculous.
So perhaps that suggests caution be taken in meddling…
Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law
#7Dumb take. “Just run your business with 10% of the revenue? What’s the problem?” Edit: to those downvoting, yea, it’s agreed that tracking is bad but the tone of the article completely ignores that a lot of the web’s content depends on this model so if it “just didn’t track” a large swath would no longer exist.
If your business cant survive without selling visitors data to Facebook it shouldnt exist.
Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law
#8Dumb take. “Just run your business with 10% of the revenue? What’s the problem?” Edit: to those downvoting, yea, it’s agreed that tracking is bad but the tone of the article completely ignores that a lot of the web’s content depends on this model so if it “just didn’t track” a large swath would no longer exist.
If your business is "doing sketchy shit with people's data", and the regulatory hammer just came down on you... well, yeah.
Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law
#9The funny thing about legislation is that you're responsible for the unintended consequences of your laws too.
No, people cannot escape responsibility by saying "the law made me be belligerent toward my users". It is intentional choice to use cookies and to make it unpleasant for people.
Re: Dear Paul Graham, there is no cookie banner law
#10The funny thing about legislation is that you're responsible for the unintended consequences of your laws too.
You mean the EU should have foreseen that people in tech have no conscience and sensitivity for right or wrong?