431–440 of 621 posts
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 don't trust anyone who is against "relevant ads," because I always think what they want isn't "irrelevant ads," they want "no ads." But no ads isn't an option.
Even well meaning bodies like TFL (Transport for London) have cookie warnings that impede the actual access of the website. Need to look up a bus time? Full screen cookie consent with accept buttons drawn OFF THE SCREEN.
They obviously aren't well-meaning if they're endlessly tracking everything you do
Your kind comes into every one of these threads and says some version of "well if they weren't tracking then they'd have nothing to worry about and no need to show a banner", but that is so obviously not true to anyone who uses the web. You absolutely do not need to defend a law that is not working.
Or you could just stop spying on people. No cookie banner is required for functionally necessary cookies.
Apparently the eu official website really needs to track you then. For what’s essentially just static content. I’ll consider dropping cookies banner when their website can work without. Stop the “do as I say not as I do” EU official website in it’s cookie banner glory: https://european-union.europa.eu/index_fr
No, they don't really need to track you, that's why it requires consent to do it.
They are doing exactly what they say.
In other words, they're not saying don't track your visitors. They're saying get consent first.
It's great they're talking about it, but they should just do like California and DO something about it.[1] > When the law takes effect in January 2027, Californians will see new privacy options in web browsers. When enabled, these controls will automatically inform websites of their privacy preferences, helping to protect personal information from being sold to data brokers and other third parties. This means they wi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on what is to be analyzed. How many requests per second are being served? How many error codes were delivered to clients? How quickly the service responded? Service logs without PII? All perfectly fine to aggregate and analyze without consent.
How long did it take x user to navigate from x screen to y screen is one of the most valuable metrics for any site, and most people consider this to require consent. Or at least it not being worth the risk to not ask. Acting dense like this isn't productive... And literally this information would be stores as anonymous user 12345, but that still would require consent (probably, or at least arguably).
Stats like that are only used to implement dark patterns better and justify user hostile decisions since pretty much the time the idea of telemetry was introduced. Otherwise, we'd live in the world of perfect web ui and we're not.
Any US corporation who displays a cookie banner to US based IP addresses should be taxed $1 million per instance of this occurring.
It's just like ADA compliance and trolling lawyers all over again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube is a site that pretty much everyone has an account already for (and therefore have already consented), but say you make YouTube 2, you can only make money if people allow personalized ads (they pay 10-20x untargeted ads). 90% less revenue means your business model doesn't work. The government in the area has decided you can't refuse service to customers that cost you money (people who don't consent). You simp…
What if I want to start a restaurant that can only make money if I use expired ingredients, run the fridge at a higher temperature to save on electricity, and don't waste my employee's time by washing their hands? These food safety laws mean my business model doesn't work. I simply will have to go out of business.
- for the love of god please do this
- please get rid of every cookie banner on every website on this planet once and for all
- you ll be doing humanity a huge favor
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Allowing bad actors to act badly against all but the most sophisticated users is exactly where lawmakers should be stepping in. Sorry you find that controversial.
We ask more sophistication of drivers to understand the rules of right of way than we would be asking of users to hit Settings -> Privacy and Cookies and read the plain language there. Sorry that you need the government to "help" people in this way, by forcing other people to give them free things.