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

481–490 of 621 posts

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#481

Post by LtWorf »

xp84 wrote: post #393
windward wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>breaks entire business models So do car alarms. I'm not convinced this is a business model I want to exist. We had an internet before it, and Google, and Facebook. I'm increasingly sad we can't return to it.

Let me be clear, I can't stand the social-media industrial complex and the advertising universe. I've seen the bottom that we've raced to, with absolute bullshit popping up everywhere and entire sites full of slop with clickbait "headlines" just rigged to get ad impressions. And I'd gladly trade today's BS for any version of "The Internet" pre-2007. But the "Before" Internet wasn't some natural sustainable state. Bef…

Their targeted ads suck. I've been a professional developer for quite a while and fb keeps peddling me programming courses for beginners to become a developer.

Or, I liked one single page of an amputee woman (I am myself) and now all I see are amputee women.

They just buy all the competitors, but they aren't good at all.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#482

Post by pjio »

Maybe I'm naive, but I just click "Accept all" and rely on Firefox's "Total Cookie Protection" to prevent tracking, without having to trust a website.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#485

Post by alt227 »

troupo wrote: post #151
alt227 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have missed the point. No ads dont require those things, but companies could start offering content in return for those things instead of ads.

> but companies could start offering content in return for those things instead of ads. Again, that is not a requirement. If your argument is that they give us content for free because of ads, ads don't require pervasive and invasive tracking . Or hiding stuff behind paywalls (since ads pay for it).

No my arguement is not that they give us free content for ads. It is that in the future it is entirely possible that they offer us free content in return for us allowing pervasive and invasive tracking.

Im pretty sure if a company said something like "Here have free netflix for life, as long as you install this browser plugin that provides us with information about your shopping habits" millions of people would bite their hand off.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#486

Post by alt227 »

monkpit wrote: post #121
alt227 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s just no will to do it. Exactly. The problem is its from the parents side.

Spoken like someone who has never used parental controls. They’re a shitshow.

You miss my point. It is that parents dont care. However good the parental controls are, there are millions of parents who just dont and wont ever care.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#488

Post by tripzilch »

xp84 wrote: post #331
thom wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of UK sites (Reach local news stuff) now explicitly say take cookies or pay, which tbh I always thought was illegal.

It's wild to me that anyone thinks that would be a reasonable law (whether or not it is law, I have no clue, I don't live in UK or EU). If you made a website and you said "To view the private content on my website, you have to either pay me, or sign a name, any name you wish, in my guestbook" what business is it of the government to say "No, this random person refuses to pay or sign the book, but Thom, you have to le…

This is a false analogy. The cookie banner stuff is explicitly about sharing data with third parties. If that were the case in your example, it'd be a different thing, right.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#489

Post by PeterStuer »

Can the proposed consent automation kill the 'legitimate interest' abuse is the most important question. Even getting towards a single click refuse all requirement would eliminate the majority of dark patterns endemic today.

Re: Kill The Cookie Banner

#490

Post by evcaldera »

preg_match wrote: post #215
tempestn wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aggregated analytics do, and you can't run a serious website without some kind of analytics. Preference-storing does as well, despite any reasonable user expecting that, if they set a preference, it will be saved.

You don't need cookies for basic aggregated analytics. Now if you want to track and record mouse movement, you do, and that's a privacy concern. The law really has nothing to do with cookies, it has to do with privacy, tracking, and PII. You can absolutely save preferences and perform analytics. What you can't do is hoard data that is personally identifiable for purposes that are not obvious to the consumer.

You need cookies if you simply want to run conversion analytics or any kind of performance marketing for media/ecommerce.
Post reply on HN