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

Kill The Cookie Banner

killthecookiebanner.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#261

Post by j16sdiz »

lacoolj wrote: post #255

This ones a little tough. Advertising through trackers is a massive portion of how sites get revenue. Going back to the old days would decimate this space, and have widespread effects on the internet (though im not sure it would be noticed by most of us anymore with how dead the internet feels now) I guess what I'm saying is, there is no good solution here. I don't want every site I visit to require a usage fee just…

I kinda of agree with you - there is no good solutions if we are only changing one or two things at a time .

I am kind of wanting to f around and found out. I missed the old internet were most of the big websites are run by hobbyist. I know some of them may not be able to pay the bill without ad. May we can figure out something once we leveled the playing field

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#262

Post by mike_hock »

morsch wrote: post #223
mike_hock wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't fall for the "we are just stupid" propaganda, which is used constantly by governments acting in bad faith. Browsers already had settings for deleting cookies. There was never a reason for banners whose only function was pulling the ladder up from smaller competitors and concentrating power in the hands of an oligopoly that could siphon data directly from the OS. This coupled with a law mandating ISPs provide a…

But I don't want to delete cookies? I want websites to use cookies that are technically necessary e.g. for keeping me logged in. I just don't want them to use it to track my behavior especially inter-website.

Interwebsite is solved by partitioning and login cookies are solved by explicit whitelisting.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#264

Post by duxup »

So much legislation about privacy that involves "oh those bad companies" that ends up putting the onus on the individual to manage it all.

I'm visiting a website, i don't want to make a legal agreement with every website ...

Social media bad for kids? Everyone hand over your ID at the door ...

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#265

Post by lucianbr »

jsrozner wrote: post #205
scbrg wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen people argue, with a straight face, that they prefer to get ads that are "relevant to them". Including here on Hacker News.

"I like being manipulated by people who want to extract maximal value from me"

Gee I wonder if anyone on HN might have some ulterior reason to write such a statement, without it being true.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#266

Post by debazel »

Jtarii wrote: post #195
inigyou wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They obviously aren't well-meaning if they're endlessly tracking everything you do

More likely it was designed by some firm that put the cookie banner there because "that is just what you do in current year"

One of our sites that don't use any kind of tracking or cookies other then a site preference cookie, got so many complaints that we had to put up a cookie banner that simply says "we do not use any tracking cookies"...

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#267

Post by tikhonj »

remus wrote: post #213
jackson1442 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"necessary only" also tends to have a malicious compliance aspect where they don't store a cookie recording your preference and show the banner on every single page until you click accept.

Perhaps I am overly optimistic in thinking this is just incompetence.

Well, maybe it is... but then the PM never prioritizes testing or fixing the problem. They're not intentionally trying to get more people to accept cookies, it's just that there are always more important features to build and fires to fight, and fixing the cookie banner won't move any of the metrics executives are breathing down their necks about, and it won't look good in the perf packet...

But of course, designing the system that pushes people to make this sort of decision was absolutely intentional.

So even when it's incompetence, it's still malicious, just in a way that obscures the explicit decision-making that led to the result.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#268

Post by sumeno »

goodrubyist wrote: post #237
kleiba2 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s well-understood that very few people actually read those things, they just want to get them out of the way. This is a jaw-drop moment for me every single time I observe someone else using the web and quickly clicking "accept" on every single cookie banners that pops up, without ever wasting a second even reading what they're accepting. It's mind boggling to me. Sure, I'm in IT, so surely I'm more aware of data…

Agreeing to terms and contracts without reading or at least skimming them is not responsible adult behavior and should not be used as a model for legislation, no matter how many people do it. I agree that we do have a culture where private law is not taken very seriously, and that's very unfortunate. People do not have a right (morally speaking, not legally) to access or use a service (or a website) etc without havin…

How much of https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/ have you actually read?

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#269

Post by buildwrangler »

This should just be a browser setting with a per site opt-in when more data collection is needed. Just like you can enable notifications, webcam etc... or set it to always deny.

Why the fuck do people have to keep stating the same preference over and over again. This is a hellscape of bad government AND corporate policy colliding.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#270

Post by sumeno »

fnord123 wrote: post #203
kleiba2 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s well-understood that very few people actually read those things, they just want to get them out of the way. This is a jaw-drop moment for me every single time I observe someone else using the web and quickly clicking "accept" on every single cookie banners that pops up, without ever wasting a second even reading what they're accepting. It's mind boggling to me. Sure, I'm in IT, so surely I'm more aware of data…

> To me, having a browser setting for cookies is the only sane way to handle this, it's surprising that this was not considered from the beginning. There is one. It's a DNT header. Knucklehead websites ignore it.

Including the one we're posting on
Post reply on HN