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

The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 979 posts

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#211

Post by kbelder »

tikkabhuna wrote: post #125
mcny wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to have a cookie popup if you don't do stupid stuff. Don't use anything other than strictly necessary cookies and you are good to go. Disclaimer: I anal and this is not legal advice.

Yep. GitHub wrote a blog post on removing their cookie banner years ago. https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/no-cookie-for...

>At GitHub, we want to protect developer privacy, and we find cookie banners quite irritating, so we decided to look for a solution. After a brief search, we found one: just don’t use any non-essential cookies. Pretty simple, really.

Go to that link, these are the cookies it writes (at least for me):

    * _ga
    * _gcl_au
    * octo
    * ai_session
    * cfz_adobe
    * cfz_google-analytics_v4
    * GHCC
    * kndctr_
    *_AdobeOrg_identity
    * MicrosoftApplicationsTelemtryDeviceId
    * OptanonConsent
    * zaraz-consent
Some are from github.blog, some are from the cloudflare.com hosting. Not sure how the laws apply to that. But obviously there's several analytics cookies.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#212

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Funes- wrote: post #190
thesmtsolver2 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How will you ban that without infringing on free speech. That is a thing in the US and a lot of countries outside the EU.

"Commercial speech" being protected by free speech laws anywhere is abhorrent. The advertising industry, in and of itself, seems abhorrent to me. It's one of the worst things humans have come up with, ever.

I'm kind of curious how people think a new business should make its existence known to prospective customers.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#213

Post by yallpendantools »

Funes- wrote: post #158
jjcm wrote: post #64

Here's the actual statement from the European Comission: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_... It's important to note they aren't creating laws against infinite scrolling , but are ruling against addictive design and pointing to infinite scrolling as an example of it. The wording here is fascinating, mainly because they're effectively acting as arbiters of "vibes". They point to certain feat…

>"well what specific laws would I write to combat addictive design?" Hear me out: banning advertising on the Internet. It's the only way. It's the primordial domino tile. You knock that one over, every other tile follows suit. It's the mother of chain reactions. There would be no social media, no Internet as we know it. Imagine having TikTok, YouTube or X trying to survive on subscriptions alone in their current iter…

Ads per se are not evil. The motherfucker we'd want to shoot, however, is targeted advertising and especially those that rely on harvested user data.

In a sense, I'm just agreeing with a fellow comment in the vicinity of this thread that said GDPR is already the EU's shot at banning (targeted) ads---it's just implemented piss-poorly. Personally formulated, my sentiment is that GDPR as it stands today is a step in the right direction towards scaling back advertisement overreach but we have a long way to go still.

Ofc it's impossible to blanket ban targeted ads because at best you end up in a philosophical argument about what counts as "targeting", at worse you either (a) indiscriminately kill a whole industry with a lot of collateral casualties or (b) just make internet advertising even worse for all of us.

My position here is that ads can be fine if they

1. are even somewhat relevant to me.

2. didn't harvest user data to target me.

3. are not annoyingly placed.

4. are not malware vectors/do not hijack your experience with dark patterns when you do click them.

To be super clear on the kind of guy talking from his soapbox here: I only browse YT on a browser with ad blockers but I don't mind sponsor segments in the videos I watch. They're a small annoyance but IMO trying to skip them is already a bigger annoyance hence why I don't even bother at all. That said, I've never converted from eyeball to even customer from sponsor segments.

I'd call this the "pre-algorithmic" advertising approach. It's how your eyeballs crossed ads in the 90s and IMO if we can impose this approach/model in the internet, then we can strike a good balance of having corporations make money off the internet and keeping the internet healthy.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#214

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

saidinesh5 wrote: post #185
andybak wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how do you stop the boring and depressing - and abusive and manipulative parts? I'm not saying legislation is a good solution but you seem to be making a poetic plea that benefits the abusers.

>I'm not saying legislation is a good solution but you seem to be making a poetic plea that benefits the abusers. Only if you believe everyone else has no agency of their own. I think most people outgrow these things once they have something more interesting in their lives. Or once they're just bored. Back when this thing was new, everyone was posting pictures of every food item they try, every place they've been to…

because some people suffer from mental health issues and need help and encouragement to break these behaviours.

And companies should not be allowed to predate on the vulnerable.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#215

Post by happytoexplain »

tokyobreakfast wrote: post #208
ahhhhnoooo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oooooof. Can I recommend you spend some time developing some empathy? The world is complicated. People's lives are complicated (and often meditated by their phones). People's emotional and social wellbeing is complicated, and simply ghosting all your social groups on a random Tuesday is likely to cause significant problems.

[flagged]

Why write like this? This is what sick internet communities look like. Mocking people for their account age, advocating for hating people for the sin of being addicted to social media. This is antisocial behavior, and we should do everything in our power to eject it from the small remaining pockets of sanity on the internet.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#216

Post by ulbu »

yallpendantools wrote: post #213
Funes- wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"well what specific laws would I write to combat addictive design?" Hear me out: banning advertising on the Internet. It's the only way. It's the primordial domino tile. You knock that one over, every other tile follows suit. It's the mother of chain reactions. There would be no social media, no Internet as we know it. Imagine having TikTok, YouTube or X trying to survive on subscriptions alone in their current iter…

Ads per se are not evil. The motherfucker we'd want to shoot, however, is targeted advertising and especially those that rely on harvested user data. In a sense, I'm just agreeing with a fellow comment in the vicinity of this thread that said GDPR is already the EU's shot at banning (targeted) ads---it's just implemented piss-poorly. Personally formulated, my sentiment is that GDPR as it stands today is a step in the…

what if ads were displayed only on request? “hi, ad page, I need some shoes, let’s go!”

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#217

Post by almostdeadguy »

Funes- wrote: post #158
jjcm wrote: post #64

Here's the actual statement from the European Comission: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_... It's important to note they aren't creating laws against infinite scrolling , but are ruling against addictive design and pointing to infinite scrolling as an example of it. The wording here is fascinating, mainly because they're effectively acting as arbiters of "vibes". They point to certain feat…

>"well what specific laws would I write to combat addictive design?" Hear me out: banning advertising on the Internet. It's the only way. It's the primordial domino tile. You knock that one over, every other tile follows suit. It's the mother of chain reactions. There would be no social media, no Internet as we know it. Imagine having TikTok, YouTube or X trying to survive on subscriptions alone in their current iter…

Can I get an amen.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#218

Post by veeti »

kbelder wrote: post #211
tikkabhuna wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. GitHub wrote a blog post on removing their cookie banner years ago. https://github.blog/news-insights/company-news/no-cookie-for...

>At GitHub, we want to protect developer privacy, and we find cookie banners quite irritating, so we decided to look for a solution. After a brief search, we found one: just don’t use any non-essential cookies. Pretty simple, really. Go to that link, these are the cookies it writes (at least for me): * _ga * _gcl_au * octo * ai_session * cfz_adobe * cfz_google-analytics_v4 * GHCC * kndctr_ *_AdobeOrg_identity * Micro…

Sounds like the marketing team finally won.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#219

Post by mrob »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #212
Funes- wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Commercial speech" being protected by free speech laws anywhere is abhorrent. The advertising industry, in and of itself, seems abhorrent to me. It's one of the worst things humans have come up with, ever.

I'm kind of curious how people think a new business should make its existence known to prospective customers.

Searchable catalogues of products with prices and features listed.

Re: The EU moves to kill infinite scrolling

#220

Post by happytoexplain »

tokyobreakfast wrote: post #96
happytoexplain wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is unrealistic.

It's unrealistic to not install TikTok? Laws are not created to be malleable about the population's trivial mental illnesses. We don't need new laws on the books because some people are incapable of turning their phones off. They have addictive personalities and will fulfill this by other means, while everyone high-fives claiming success.

Don't put words in my mouth. I called your comment unrealistic, holistically.
Post reply on HN