very sorry for the joke, but isn’t every regular website also like this?
[1] 1: https://xkcd.com/90/
Every Fucking Website (2020)
471–480 of 529 posts
Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)
#472>Scroll
>Popup
>Close
>Popup
>Close
>GDPR
damn
Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have Firefox setup to not launch apps on android with permission. I don't have Instagram/Facebook/etc installed. Attempting to view a Instagram link on mobile is the most hostile thing in existence. You essentially can't, but it so aggressively routes you to the website based Google play store it's horrifying.
You can have Firefox and struggle with apps BUT you visit Instagram? This is actually possible both in one person? Wow.
People share links to Instagram with me. It isn't something I seek out myself.
Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have Firefox setup to not launch apps on android with permission. I don't have Instagram/Facebook/etc installed. Attempting to view a Instagram link on mobile is the most hostile thing in existence. You essentially can't, but it so aggressively routes you to the website based Google play store it's horrifying.
Whichever devs implemented the Instagram behaviour ought to have their computer taken off them. 100% the worst experience. “Oh you don’t have the app? No big deal, let’s (maybe) play the video anyway but remove the audio, obscure half the screen, and make any interaction redirect and then bounce to the App Store. Why won’t you download our app already????”
I don't use IG but my girl does and she likes to show me things. She does use the app and it drives me absolutely nuts how she tries to show me a video or image and I can't actually see/read the main point of it because there's a million gizmos (buttons etc) in the way that seem like they can't be hidden. Like actually 30% of the video is obscured by this pointless crap.
Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)
#475Should load much slower. Also, where is the unrelated autoplaying video that will unmute if you actually click it, that follows your scrolling and only becomes smaller when you dismiss it? Plus, it should probably have text that cuts off letting you know you can have access for just $10/month. Plus, isn't this website undissmissably "better in the app" after a few minutes of attempting to use it on a phone? Where's t…
> Plus, isn't this website undissmissably "better in the app" after a few minutes of attempting to use it on a phone? Where's that at? This is the most annoying thing on the internet. There’s a site I’d like to use, but “try the app” takes up the entire page (and appears to be impossible to dismiss?). Actually, is there a way to permanently request the desktop site for all future visits to a domain on iOS? There is n…
[deleted]
Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this is the only way to get people to watch your videos, maybe your channel sucks. But glad you are making money tricking people into wasting their time so you can get one more ad impression.
So every channel sucks?
Sounds like you've let your feed fill with shitty channels, but no, not all channels do this. I mostly refuse to watch videos with those cringe clickbait thumbnails, and I've still got more stuff to watch that I've got time for. And it's mostly gaming and variety streamers, or music/animation artists; not serious stuff.
Now, I'll grant you that these may not become as successful as the clickbaity ones. Then again, the latter channels might as well not exist to me and like-minded people.
Just an hour ago I unfollowed a streamer precisely because he's been getting clickbaity. We've got to take some responsibility over the people we choose to watch.
Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)
#477Should load much slower. Also, where is the unrelated autoplaying video that will unmute if you actually click it, that follows your scrolling and only becomes smaller when you dismiss it? Plus, it should probably have text that cuts off letting you know you can have access for just $10/month. Plus, isn't this website undissmissably "better in the app" after a few minutes of attempting to use it on a phone? Where's t…
> Plus, isn't this website undissmissably "better in the app" after a few minutes of attempting to use it on a phone? Where's that at? This is the most annoying thing on the internet. There’s a site I’d like to use, but “try the app” takes up the entire page (and appears to be impossible to dismiss?). Actually, is there a way to permanently request the desktop site for all future visits to a domain on iOS? There is n…
[deleted]
Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, but it doesn’t require notification for every user that hits your landing page. If you want to remember dark mode with a cookie, then you can just gate that setting behind a “allow functional cookies” toggle. Getting consent for functional cookies doesn’t have to be done with an intrusive cookie bar on landing. You can request consent as it becomes needed. There’s other ways of complying that aren’t dark patter…
Can you please tell me what part of this law requires any sort of notification or toggle whatsoever for remembering your dark mode setting: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/
You're replying to me, but I'm not the one asserting it. The GDPR law doesn't require it specifically, but the earlier ePrivacy regulation does and it is considered to be the guide for GDPR on this specific issue. Lex Specialis is the term for one regulation being applied within a different one.
In any case here is a plain text interpretation from the EU (https://gdpr.eu/cookies/):
"Strictly necessary cookies — These cookies are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold your items in your cart while you are shopping online are an example of strictly necessary cookies. These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies. While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user.
Preferences cookies — Also known as “functionality cookies,” these cookies allow a website to remember choices you have made in the past, like what language you prefer, what region you would like weather reports for, or what your user name and password are so you can automatically log in."
Farther down:
"To comply with the regulations governing cookies under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive you must:
Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies. ..."
So a preference cookie is categorized differently than "strictly necessary" by the ePrivacy rules predating, but now part of, GDPR. But elsewhere in this thread someone asserted that a cookie that is placed and the data never sent back to the server is exempt, so if you handle dark mode entirely client side you might be ok?
I'm beginning to understand why the lawyers in the EU just say "fuck it, put a banner up"
Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what various references (and AIs) say. Strictly necessary means strictly necessary. They didn't bother defining it in the law. However, user preferences were called out specifically in the WP29 opinion as something that wouldn't count as strictly necessary if scoped any wider than the browser session. So if the plain English meaning and the drafters' opinion contradicts your opinion, why should I risk sign…
Yeah well most references on this are wrong, and AIs are doubly wrong since they ingest those references and also since they are AIs. I suggest actually reading the GDPR if you think it applies to you. The EU put it up on a website for everyone to see. Here's the most relevant section: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/ Notice how cookies are not mentioned, popups are not mentioned, and strictly necessary is not mentio…
See my other response with citations.
In short: the GDPR doesn't mention it but it is covered by the ePrivacy directive/regulations which does cover cookies very specifically, and which is enforced through GDPR.
Re: Every Fucking Website (2020)
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does static site of Europe's parliament need big cookie banner? Or is that the parliament which created this law doesn't know what you know or they are doing "malicious compliance". [1]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en
Because they want to track people and they need consent for that.
I know the technical reason. I was contesting the GP's comment that most site display banner "Instead of complying". Most website needs basic tracking and there is nothing wrong in it.
We are just conditioned to see it without difference in basic tracking and tracking all your clicks across site and selling it to advertisers.