11–20 of 662 posts
The funny thing about legislation is that you're responsible for the unintended consequences of your laws too.
You don’t need a banner for the data that is necessary for the service to work at minimum level. There is no role for the consent since the site won’t work otherwise.
Dumb take. “Just run your business with 10% of the revenue? What’s the problem?” Edit: to those downvoting, yea, it’s agreed that tracking is bad but the tone of the article completely ignores that a lot of the web’s content depends on this model so if it “just didn’t track” a large swath would no longer exist.
Dumb take. “Just run your business with 10% of the revenue? What’s the problem?” Edit: to those downvoting, yea, it’s agreed that tracking is bad but the tone of the article completely ignores that a lot of the web’s content depends on this model so if it “just didn’t track” a large swath would no longer exist.
Dumb take. “Just run your business with 10% of the revenue? What’s the problem?” Edit: to those downvoting, yea, it’s agreed that tracking is bad but the tone of the article completely ignores that a lot of the web’s content depends on this model so if it “just didn’t track” a large swath would no longer exist.
Dumb take. “Just run your business with 10% of the revenue? What’s the problem?” Edit: to those downvoting, yea, it’s agreed that tracking is bad but the tone of the article completely ignores that a lot of the web’s content depends on this model so if it “just didn’t track” a large swath would no longer exist.
Companies with tons of hidden fees decide to keep them but force you to read all the fees on every page of the menu before you can see the rest of the text, in the most annoying way possible, and promote the idea that the issue is not the extravagant fees, nor the fact that the companies hide them before and had to be forced by law to warn you about them, no the problem is a law that force them to tell you what you're getting into before it's too late !
That's, essentially, what's happening. And we have people complain that companies need to display their fees.
On this issue in the group that complain about the cookie law there are some people who are very wrong on purpose because it's in their interest, and some people who are very wrong because they genuinely don't understand the position they're defending, complaining about being made aware of the fee, instead of the fees themselves or the fact that the companies hide them if not forced by law.
To each their own belief about which category PG fits into.
Dumb take. “Just run your business with 10% of the revenue? What’s the problem?” Edit: to those downvoting, yea, it’s agreed that tracking is bad but the tone of the article completely ignores that a lot of the web’s content depends on this model so if it “just didn’t track” a large swath would no longer exist.
If your business is "doing sketchy shit with people's data", and the regulatory hammer just came down on you... well, yeah.
That’t not "doing sketchy shit with people's data"
I can’t believe how many people have bought into this EU regulation hook line and sinker. It’s ridiculous, imagine the man hours that have been wasted in the last 7 years just clicking cookie bars. And as OP says, it’s completely unrealistic to not have them.
The principle seems sound, but the EU is deadlocked over reforms to create some extra exemptions, e.g. for security scans/mandatory updates, or privacy-respecting audience metrics. EU regulators are already sort of turning a blind eye to those, so it's fair to say the EU isn't great at regulating - it's not fixing what society mostly seems to see as bugs/overreach in the original (now decades-old) law.
The funny thing about legislation is that you're responsible for the unintended consequences of your laws too.