Live data from Hacker News

Every Fucking Website (2020)

lxe.github.io

41–50 of 529 posts

Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)

#41

The cookie thing, I assume it's EU-only, is an example of the EU policy making process being fundamentally broken in some way. If you create a flawed policy and don't fix it many years after it's very visibly obvious that it's a bad policy, something is really wrong.

Do Not Track was the right implementation (browser-based, activate only once) and it was sabotaged by ad peddlers. It is bad policy that has been reached after every better alternative was rejected.

Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)

#42
For my current project, I tried going with a non-traditional style I personally liked, I call it "Soft Neo Brutalism". You can see it at: http://www.frost-e.com

I generally wanted web 1.0 simplicity, lots of contrast, but also a soft gentle colours and modern vibe. I also have a general design for use in dashboards/apps etc: https://frost-e.com/design-system/

Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)

#44

The cookie thing, I assume it's EU-only, is an example of the EU policy making process being fundamentally broken in some way. If you create a flawed policy and don't fix it many years after it's very visibly obvious that it's a bad policy, something is really wrong.

It’s an EU law, but it impacts us all in America as well… because you know, every fucking website

It is not an EU law. Nowhere in GDPR are cookie banners mandated.

Actually big tech is to blame: https://killthecookiebanner.eu/

Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)

#45

Loaded way too fast and is way too responsive. Also when I checked NoScript, it's only loading js from lxe.github.io I expect there to be at minimum 8 domains, but often 12-18.

And needs some kind of loop that retries endlessly to make the AdBlock counter go brrr

Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)

#46
post #30

The cookie thing, I assume it's EU-only, is an example of the EU policy making process being fundamentally broken in some way. If you create a flawed policy and don't fix it many years after it's very visibly obvious that it's a bad policy, something is really wrong.

The EU said "you have to ask for permission before forcefully sodomizing your users", and webdevs thought "let's ask for permission" rather than "let's not forcefully sodomize our users". Of course, the law could have said "don't forcefully sodomize users", but it seems the west is still under the impression that some people will do the right thing, just because, sometimes. ( maybe 20 years ago they would have, just…

Not web devs per se, I’d be hard pressed to find a serious web dev who wanted to “forcefully sodomize users”. Thats a management thing

Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)

#48

The cookie thing, I assume it's EU-only, is an example of the EU policy making process being fundamentally broken in some way. If you create a flawed policy and don't fix it many years after it's very visibly obvious that it's a bad policy, something is really wrong.

Policy making assumed good faith actors - specifically that tracking outside of necessary for website to function to be minimal. Because like…not necessary.

It’s only broken to the extent that it collided with a messed up world where websites track even when they don’t need to and then send that to 2000 partners for more profit extraction on top of what the website does commercially.

Something is deeply fucked up there and it’s not the EU part. They just make a good scapegoat because the banner is what users see

Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)

#49

Loaded way too fast and is way too responsive. Also when I checked NoScript, it's only loading js from lxe.github.io I expect there to be at minimum 8 domains, but often 12-18.

All buttons and links need to shift around for a good 10 seconds before the page settles.

Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)

#50
post #18

The cookie thing, I assume it's EU-only, is an example of the EU policy making process being fundamentally broken in some way. If you create a flawed policy and don't fix it many years after it's very visibly obvious that it's a bad policy, something is really wrong.

it's an example of malicious compliance by some, and herd mentality by others. I had a discussion with my CFO about removing the cookie banner from our website (because we don't set any tracking cookies, and cookies for things like login are exempted) and he said "yeah, but it makes the site seem less legitimate.

Reminds me of the early days of the CANSPAM act.

One of the best indicators that something was not spam was the unsubscribe button.

Post reply on HN