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

1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

noyb.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 110 posts

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#91

Post by lII1lIlI11ll »

troupo wrote: post #89
lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Advertising does not require invasive and pervasive tracking. Why are you so opposed to pay for a tier without tracking? I'm still not following. > Why the hell are people defending 24/7 monitoring at scale that would make even Stasi or Stalin pause and think "are we going too far?"? 1984 wasn't an instruction manual. Stasi or KGB weren't "opt in" for their citizens while social networks definitely are. For example…

> Why are you so opposed to pay for a tier without tracking? I'm still not following. Because advertising does not require invasive and pervasive tracking. The better question is: why are you so happy defending 24/7 surveillance of everything you do? > Stasi or KGB weren't "opt in" for their citizens What you're proposing isn't opt in either. You're proposing "pervasive and invasive tracking, or pay an arbitrary sum…

> Because advertising does not require invasive and pervasive tracking.

Okay, so just ignore tracking-advertisement supported option and sign up for payed account. What is your issue with this again?

> What you're proposing isn't opt in either. You're proposing "pervasive and invasive tracking, or pay an arbitrary sum randomly defined by the tracking industry". That is, literally pay for access to internet without tracking, or else.

This is incorrect. GDPR already forbids tracking without consent, so services you didn't sign up for (the whole internet) can't legally track you. Obviously, then everything would cost you actual money not just social networks.

> Here's a direct link. And no, this pop up wasn't on an "opt out social network". It was on a random site (can't remember now which one): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTe23o5WwAACyNJ?format=png&name=...

This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. GDPR already forbids random sites and ad networks from tracking you without your explicit consent.

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#92

Post by HDThoreaun »

anon48293 wrote: post #61

Just ban ads already. I don’t want ads. I don’t want to be tracked. I should have the right to never interact with either, unless explicit, informed and single-button-revocable consent is given.

Half of the people in the world use facebook/ig every month and revealed preferences show they have no interest in banning ads

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#93

Post by troupo »

lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #91
troupo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are you so opposed to pay for a tier without tracking? I'm still not following. Because advertising does not require invasive and pervasive tracking. The better question is: why are you so happy defending 24/7 surveillance of everything you do? > Stasi or KGB weren't "opt in" for their citizens What you're proposing isn't opt in either. You're proposing "pervasive and invasive tracking, or pay an arbitrary sum…

> Because advertising does not require invasive and pervasive tracking. Okay, so just ignore tracking-advertisement supported option and sign up for payed account. What is your issue with this again? > What you're proposing isn't opt in either. You're proposing "pervasive and invasive tracking, or pay an arbitrary sum randomly defined by the tracking industry". That is, literally pay for access to internet without tr…

> Okay, so just ignore tracking-advertisement supported option and sign up for payed account. What is your issue with this again?

Somehow the only option you propose and defend is: "pay, or be tracked".

Why would I want a world where the only way not to be tracked is to pay?

Moreover, your whole premise is based on the completely unsubstantiated claim that tracking is required for advertisment and for the poor hapless b2c companies.

> This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. GDPR already forbids random sites and ad networks from tracking you without your explicit consent.

You're literally saying that in your vision you are either tracked, or have to pay for access.

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#94

Post by BenjiWiebe »

stvltvs wrote: post #90
eckelhesten wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I got a dollar for every person suckered into buying Samsung products… But to stay on topic: never! connect your tv to the internet. My LG has been offline for around 5 years now after automatically installing unwanted apps. Since then, I run everything via an Apple TV 4K which works way better than LGs own software does anyway.

Putting on tinfoil hat... how do we know it isn't connecting to our neighbors' open WiFi?

Do your neighbors have open Wi-Fi? I'm a country dweller, but when I'm in town I look at the Wi-Fi list (in horror) sometimes, and it's really rare to see an open Wi-Fi network.

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#95

Post by lII1lIlI11ll »

troupo wrote: post #93
lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because advertising does not require invasive and pervasive tracking. Okay, so just ignore tracking-advertisement supported option and sign up for payed account. What is your issue with this again? > What you're proposing isn't opt in either. You're proposing "pervasive and invasive tracking, or pay an arbitrary sum randomly defined by the tracking industry". That is, literally pay for access to internet without tr…

> Okay, so just ignore tracking-advertisement supported option and sign up for payed account. What is your issue with this again? Somehow the only option you propose and defend is: "pay, or be tracked". Why would I want a world where the only way not to be tracked is to pay? Moreover, your whole premise is based on the completely unsubstantiated claim that tracking is required for advertisment and for the poor haples…

Besides paying or accepting being tracked you also have the option of not using web services that require that. Some things you can self-host (email, Mastodon instance, etc), others are sponsored (HN). I still don't get why you expect to dictate to businesses how to price their products - voting with your wallet has always been the way to express your disagreement, not "EU mAkE eViL Zuck serVE mE fOr fRee!!!11".

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#96

Post by stvltvs »

BenjiWiebe wrote: post #94
stvltvs wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting on tinfoil hat... how do we know it isn't connecting to our neighbors' open WiFi?

Do your neighbors have open Wi-Fi? I'm a country dweller, but when I'm in town I look at the Wi-Fi list (in horror) sometimes, and it's really rare to see an open Wi-Fi network.

Anecdotal but my laptop just found 2 open WiFi networks out of 20. One's enough though.

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#97

Post by philistine »

stvltvs wrote: post #90
eckelhesten wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I got a dollar for every person suckered into buying Samsung products… But to stay on topic: never! connect your tv to the internet. My LG has been offline for around 5 years now after automatically installing unwanted apps. Since then, I run everything via an Apple TV 4K which works way better than LGs own software does anyway.

Putting on tinfoil hat... how do we know it isn't connecting to our neighbors' open WiFi?

It’s a common fear. People constantly mention it on HN every time the advice to keep a TV off the internet is mentioned. Yet we have never seen proof by anyone, not once, that it has happened. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#98

Post by troupo »

lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #95
troupo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Okay, so just ignore tracking-advertisement supported option and sign up for payed account. What is your issue with this again? Somehow the only option you propose and defend is: "pay, or be tracked". Why would I want a world where the only way not to be tracked is to pay? Moreover, your whole premise is based on the completely unsubstantiated claim that tracking is required for advertisment and for the poor haples…

Besides paying or accepting being tracked you also have the option of not using web services that require that. Some things you can self-host (email, Mastodon instance, etc), others are sponsored (HN). I still don't get why you expect to dictate to businesses how to price their products - voting with your wallet has always been the way to express your disagreement, not "EU mAkE eViL Zuck serVE mE fOr fRee!!!11".

> Besides paying or accepting being tracked you also have the option of not using web services that require that.

Which is 90% of modern internet

> I still don't get why you expect to dictate to businesses how to price their products

I still don't understand why you keep defending pervasive and invasive tracking of everything you do 24/7 across every site, and device, and service you visit or use even in passing.

> voting with your wallet has always been the way to express your disagreement

No. It has rarely worked. Especially in the face of supranational corporations, and thousands of data brokers.

I mean, the top comment to the news is this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49106733 about a TV that the person already buys with their money, and that still tracks and sells their data to over 200 "partners". And every TV you can buy at the store these days does that. How can I "vote with my wallet"?

Or do you think fifa.com (referenced in the article under which we discuss this) needs money to run their site? FIFA has a revenue of $15 billion dollars from the World Cup alone: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jul/18/fifa-record... And yet: https://www.fifa.com/ads.txt

> EU mAkE eViL Zuck serVE mE fOr fRee!!!11

Literally no one is saying that. You are the only one pretending that invasive and pervasive tracking is the only way to serve ads or sponsor content and sites.

So, tell me, why is it you are defending tracking so much?

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#99

Post by troupo »

Nursie wrote: post #58
loeg wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> becoming informed would likely take days or weeks. Then it is basically impossible to consent to any kind of tracking, because users cannot become informed for any number of 3rd parties -- even a single one.

I'm not sure I agree that you couldn't become informed about a single one. I think one is probably reasonable. Presumably, if your service was important enough to the user and the third party tracking integration important enough to you that you're willing to ask the user to spend a few hours reviewing their 'contract' with the third party, then such a thing could be done. I imagine a lot of people would click the “I…

> if your service was important enough to the user and the third party tracking integration important enough to you that you're willing to ask the user to spend a few hours reviewing their 'contract' with the third party,

I've now bought two apartments and sold one. The whole process including reading the contract almost in its entirety out loud for both parties, and signing by the parties, and confirmation of the bank took less than an hour.

There's almost no service important enough to spend a few hours reading through a contract. And those that are? They should not have contracts of that length.

> letting advertisers track you is how we make money, please click yes and we can get paid for your visit”

Ads don't require pervasive and invasive tracking. No one needs to store my precise geolocation for 12 years to serve me an ad: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTe23o5WwAACyNJ.png?name=orig

Re: 1,741 "informed" consents with one click? GDPR complaint filed

#100

Post by troupo »

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #15

I thought for sure this would be for f1tv.formula1.com but apparently that's only 134 and I thought that was ridiculous.

Those are rookie numbers. Here's 1498: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GA5Z-ZgW4AAu1vn?format=jpg&name=... Can't remember where I ran into this.
Post reply on HN