101–110 of 177 posts
As I click my 10,000th cookie modal to read this article, I am forced to ask if this legislation has made my web experience better in any way, to which the answer is a resounding no. I understand the importance of it, but please prioritise revising its shortcomings rather than doubling down on being the most tech-hostile region in the developed world.
As I click my 10,000th cookie modal to read this article, I am forced to ask if this legislation has made my web experience better in any way, to which the answer is a resounding no. I understand the importance of it, but please prioritise revising its shortcomings rather than doubling down on being the most tech-hostile region in the developed world.
As clear as can be yes. Now you know which websites are willing to absolutely ruin your experience just to abuse you. The implications can be seen pretty much everywhere in society, it is a momentous step in the right direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Pop-up fatigue causes people to just click the button that will get them to their content the fastest. While some people might dive into trying to opt out, when you get these pop-ups on every other site, many people are going to click the easiest button to make it go away. This is a poor law because it has to be done on every website. I think it may be better to have this as a decision the user chooses on…
The law is that it needs to be as easy to reject cookies as it is to accept them. Ergo, "people are going to click the easiest button to make it go away" indicates a failure to enforce. I agree it'd be better handled by the browser than each website, though.
Unfortunately, many websites that I’ve seen have only “customize” and “accept all”. And the customize pane then contains dozens of preselected checkboxes (which, AFAIK, isn’t allowed, but I digress). Each checkbox is for a separate tracker I need to disable before clicking “save”.
The problem is absolutely the lack of enforcement.[a] If it was being enforced better, these sites would be fined until they fix themselves.
[a]: Yes, I’m aware that it is being enforced. I’m complaining that it’s not enough.
I recently spoke with an older brother of a young man, about 13, who is heavily addicted to TikTok. His brother told me that he has been skipping school to stay on his phone, and that when his phone is taken away, he flies into a screaming rage, and runs down the street barefoot.
As I click my 10,000th cookie modal to read this article, I am forced to ask if this legislation has made my web experience better in any way, to which the answer is a resounding no. I understand the importance of it, but please prioritise revising its shortcomings rather than doubling down on being the most tech-hostile region in the developed world.
As clear as can be yes. Now you know which websites are willing to absolutely ruin your experience just to abuse you. The implications can be seen pretty much everywhere in society, it is a momentous step in the right direction.
An API where advertisers can also store advertising-ids and more site-specific, tracking-related settings into (if the user grants this permission), giving them the possibility to move away from the use of cookies for this purpose. Then it should become obligatory to not use cookies for tracking and ad-related purposes.
There are cases where 3rd-party cookies are important, and I'm a bit afraid that Google wants to remove them altogether.
I personally don't care about non-personalized ads. If the advertisers see that it makes no sense to offer me a random ad, they may start looking at the context of the page where they are serving there ads, in order to serve me a bit more relevant ads. Then again, there are others who absolutely love personalized ads. So this solution would be a fair offering to the advertisement industry.
This API could even be so advertiser-friendly that the user could even specify categories of interest so that the advertiser doesn't have to guess through tracking.
I have always promised myself that if I become a billionare, I will simply stop providing services to municipalities or countries that create arbitrary laws that make it hard or difficult to do business in. Honestly Google should have just boycotted Europe for a week and seen how well everyone handles not having gmail, google, or anything. California is particularly onerous about all sorts of stuff like labelling eve…
I really wish people like you who _are_ billionaires would stop making threats and just do it already. Taking your ball and going home because you can't play nice doesn't work in grade school, and won't work in adult life; but maybe there would be a lot less background noise from all the rich people shaking their fists and threatening to do things we know damn well they never will.
The business would work and billionaires don't become billionaires by turning down business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As clear as can be yes. Now you know which websites are willing to absolutely ruin your experience just to abuse you. The implications can be seen pretty much everywhere in society, it is a momentous step in the right direction.
ignoring the fact the vast majority of users never noticed , never cared, and still don't care but not robotic like click away the warnings. I am not dismissing the need to let consumers know how their habits and information are used I am merely stating that many here overreact on behalf of people who really could care less, they just want their content
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As clear as can be yes. Now you know which websites are willing to absolutely ruin your experience just to abuse you. The implications can be seen pretty much everywhere in society, it is a momentous step in the right direction.
It's also interesting to see how Google has reacted to this. Them being the owner of Chrome, they could have implemented a new API in no time which would allow advertisers to use an alternative to cookies. An API where I as a user can define my preferences regarding targeted advertising, and the site owner can query these preferences. An API where advertisers can also store advertising-ids and more site-specific, tra…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the legislators didn't want the pop-ups to be annoying. They didn't even require pop-ups. Who wants the pop-ups to be annoying and riddled with dark patterns are the ones implementing it, exactly to cause this kind of reaction on you so you start hating the law, not the ones who are trying their best to skirt around it, to find the loopholes and abuse them. To make your experience as poor as possible while being…
I know the law and how bloody stupid it is. Third party cookies and ad blockers are configurable in your browser, if you don’t configure them then it’s your fault.
It isn't perfect, at all, but no laws are. This is a major milestone for the discussion of data privacy and pushed the world into that, it needs to be worked, of course, but that's how laws work, they take time to evolve.
As someone who has had to work on several GDPR compliance initiatives I don't think it's bloody stupid at all, no matter how much more workload it has created for all the teams I helped to implement it. It has quirks but it's in no way bloody stupid.
I'd prefer if you can list your arguments for being bloody stupid as just stating that does not develop any kind of healthy discussion, it's your opinion and judgment of value, with no supporting argument. Good luck with that, victim-blaming is corporate-bootlicking.
I recently spoke with an older brother of a young man, about 13, who is heavily addicted to TikTok. His brother told me that he has been skipping school to stay on his phone, and that when his phone is taken away, he flies into a screaming rage, and runs down the street barefoot.
Does he get very far?