I don't care about cookies • Hacker News Board

Re: I don't care about cookies

#191

Post by ronjouch » Sun, Mar 21, 2021, 10:32 PM UTC

aembleton wrote: post #190

ronjouch wrote: post #18

Or, if you already use uBlock Origin and would rather use its performant, customizable, extensible filtering capabilities instead of adding (and trusting!) yet another addon, just check the "EasyList Cookie" list in your Filter Lists :) .

I don't care about cookies blocks more. In uBO you can add the I don't care about cookies list: https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/

How do you quantify "more"? If you mean "by length of blocklist", is the number of rules a good metric to evaluate a filter list? In years of using the built-in "EasyList Cookie" list, I've:

1. Never seen a cookie div.

2. Never been bitten by incorrect / false-positivey / over-zealous rules.

Everything else being equal, more options is good, but I don't see any reason to switch from Easylist Cookies, which I know is well-maintained, benefits from the Easylist umbrella, and has lots of users (since it's offered by default in uBlock Origin).

Re: I don't care about cookies

#192

Post by ckastner » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 9:08 AM UTC

Aerroon wrote: post #189

ckastner wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think most website owners don't care about that, but they do care about earning money to actually run the website. Again -- the GDPR recognizes the right to data as a a fundamental right, and thus the ability to earn money with a website comes second to user's rights. Argumenting against this is a bit like Big Tobacco complaining that they're not allowed to sell cigarettes to children. > The GDPR says that if the…

I'm not sure why you're downvoted, but (b) isn't allowed under GDPR. Consent has to be given freely. It means that you can't block content if the user is unwilling to have their information shared.

(b) is allowed. This has been confirmed by the Austrian Data Protection Agency. (I haven't checked other DPAs, but they coordinate with each other.)

In the case above, a newspaper offered access to paywalled content for a small monthly subscription fee, and readers would consume it with zero ads, zero tracking.

Alternatively, they offered access with no monetary cost, but instead in exchange for tracking.

The DPA ruled this as fair because readers had a choice, and because the paid model was reasonable for a newspaper subscription (€6/month).

The key here is that starting with alternative (a) makes it a paywalled service, which is clearly legal (think Netflix). Also offering (b) just offers another mode of payment.

You wrote earlier: "GDPR breaks the normal monetization methods of the web." Well, smoking regulation broke (some of the) monetization methods of Big Tobacco.

Arguing against the GDPR here is besides the point. The GDPR is not an end, it is a means. The end is recognition of right to data as a fundamental right.

Re-writing your statement in light of this, the point becomes "Data as a fundamental right breaks the normal monetization methods of the web." Opinions will differ here.

Re: I don't care about cookies

#193

Post by CogitoCogito » Mon, Mar 22, 2021, 9:24 AM UTC

Aerroon wrote: post #154

CogitoCogito wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU's site is actually a pretty nice example. The banner is small, non-obtrusive and simple. It has the positive and negative options on equal footing. I don't think many would complain about that.

It's still a popup. And yeah, of course a website that doesn't ever have to care about paying the bills has leeway. Make the commission's website pay for their own hosting, maintenance, and development and see whether their website stays the way it is.

Why are you acting like all popups are the same?

Also what is your source that the commission isn't paying for their website? I don't mean to say that it's a relevant point, but I'm curious where you got this information. Does the commission not budget for their own hosting?