Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

dataprotectioncontrol.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 269 posts

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#191

Post by Ensorceled »

morelisp wrote: post #186
Ensorceled wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is fundamentally misunderstanding how internet advertising works: advertises will pay higher CPM for precise targeting and attribution publishers want the best CPM they can get adtech uses as many tricks as possible to get as much information as possible about a user so they can maximize the CPM the advertiser will pay Publishers just end up doing what ever their adtech partners tell them will give them the best…

Haha, no. You're falling for the trick, or maybe you're just 10 years behind. Publishers (and retailers, and anyone with a dataset) seek out adtech partner companies, to justify high CPMs and to sell their audience data . Adtech companies are market-makers, it's been years since the data they can get independently of supply-side partners was worth shit. The publisher is the one with the cookie warning and consent for…

> Publishers (and retailers, and anyone with a dataset) seek out adtech partner companies, to justify high CPMs and to sell their audience data. Adtech companies are market-makers, it's been years since the data they can get independently of supply-side partners was worth shit.

You're correct, for large publishers ... I guess we could almost say they are adtech companies now.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#192

Post by oftenwrong »

akie wrote: post #109
oftenwrong wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of permitting sites to request consent of the user directly, they should be required to request consent via an official EU site. It could work like an authorisation redirect flow. This would standardise the consent UI, and prevent sites from implementing dark patterns.

Then the EU tracks everything everyone does. Nice.

The site could provide an opaque ID for user. Also, anti-tracking on the part of the EU could be enforced by law.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#193

Post by equitablequal »

411111111111111 wrote: post #154
leokennis wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This exactly. This is also why I never feel "ashamed" when sites ask me to please disable my ad blocker because when I block ads they'll go out of business. Or why I'll always decline even "user respecting" ads on sites. We're fighting the ad and tracking industry here, the internet equivalent of a gang member with a shiv and a length of pipe. I'm not going to fight nicely. I'll deny you any chance and any method I g…

Just a small reminder for people using Firefox and ublock origin: you can remove almost all cookie prompts by enabling the annoyances filters in the addon settings

Anyone not using Firefox/Ublock; you can use NoScript to block the banners, and a lot of other adtech (including some paywalls such as Bloomberg) as they are all JS-powered.

It's quite surprising to see how many JS plugins are in operation on a typical consumer site, and satisfying to know they were all blocked unless expressly permitted :)

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#194

Post by titzer »

juloo wrote: post #8

Why do they still think we want tracking cookies ? The ad industry should prepare for a future with no tracking instead of trying to survive with ever shadier tricks, IMO. This won't work: - browsers other than Chrome will say "no tracking" by default, tracking companies won't like that - websites will ignore this, this will be known and people will be upset even more - more javascript when we want less

The ad industry has measured, and tracking means more revenue and more clicks. How much more? 2x. Not more. But 2x is 5 years of 15% "normal growth".

They will absolutely not accept going back in time just 5 years in terms of revenue. They will fight to the death over every dollar.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#195

Post by rchaud »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #156
leokennis wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This exactly. This is also why I never feel "ashamed" when sites ask me to please disable my ad blocker because when I block ads they'll go out of business. Or why I'll always decline even "user respecting" ads on sites. We're fighting the ad and tracking industry here, the internet equivalent of a gang member with a shiv and a length of pipe. I'm not going to fight nicely. I'll deny you any chance and any method I g…

I agree that we should not feel shame at blocking ads. I remember when the web was new and "pop-up blockers" became a thing. Ad companies and everyone using them have long ago burned any and all good will we might have had towards them and deserve nothing but our contempt.

I remember IE6's so-called blocker failing to block a lot of popups. It wasn't until I discovered Firefox in 2004 that I stopped seeing them.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#196

Post by titzer »

mgkimsal wrote: post #101

in the 90s, we had a 'big cookie' scare. and laws were threatened (or passed?). And... MUCH of this came down to ... managing cookies (or other browser state) was (and is) largely so damn hidden behind layers of configs, menus and options. We have a home button. We have forward and back. We have 'bookmark' buttons, which many people understand. A big 'COOKIE' button, on the main browser UI, that clearly show cookie i…

Now you see the conflict of interest when an ad company develops its own browser?

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#197

Post by tomjen3 »

oftenwrong wrote: post #82
hnarn wrote: post #24

The most frustrating thing about these cookie banners (more like cookie lightboxes) is that almost none of them are compliant with the rules. Unfortunately I don't have time to find the source right now, but I'm pretty sure I've read official EU guidance docs clearly stating that many "dark patterns" are simply illegal. For example making the "Accept all cookies" button require less effort than only accepting necessa…

Instead of permitting sites to request consent of the user directly, they should be required to request consent via an official EU site. It could work like an authorisation redirect flow. This would standardise the consent UI, and prevent sites from implementing dark patterns.

Better yet, a standard browser interface.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#198

Post by duckmysick »

quotemstr wrote: post #181
wintermutestwin wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically, Article 12 of the UDHR states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... Why isn't this Article at the forefront of any and all conversation re…

Who defines what "privacy" means? You? Why? Can you point me to the place where the Universal Declaration of Human Rights talks about cookies and FLoC? The UCHR is not a blank check for banning anything you want in the name of "privacy". There are a lot of angry people in this thread stating what they want, but none have offered an argument for why we should structure society around their whims. Sorry, but "you shoul…

There's nothing in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights about privacy regarding medical records, but various jurisdictions agree that it's worth protecting.

> Sorry, but "you shouldn't be able to collect information" isn't an argument.

How about "private entities shouldn't be able to collect my information without my explicit consent".

> It's a wish. Nobody is under any obligation to indulge the wishes of random strangers.

Yours included.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#199

Post by mgkimsal »

titzer wrote: post #196
mgkimsal wrote: post #101

in the 90s, we had a 'big cookie' scare. and laws were threatened (or passed?). And... MUCH of this came down to ... managing cookies (or other browser state) was (and is) largely so damn hidden behind layers of configs, menus and options. We have a home button. We have forward and back. We have 'bookmark' buttons, which many people understand. A big 'COOKIE' button, on the main browser UI, that clearly show cookie i…

Now you see the conflict of interest when an ad company develops its own browser?

I saw it on day one.

Opera and others didn't bother to make cookie transparency a big priority either. :/

More to the point, it was poorly exposed/managed well before Chrome.

Re: New browser signal could make cookie banners obsolete

#200

Post by rchaud »

jjk166 wrote: post #187
MagnumOpus wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge proportion of posters either work at adware companies or are big time owners of adware stocks. And as the Sinclair adage goes, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

This is intellectually lazy. You can't just assume that the large numbers of people who hold a position you disagree with do so only because they have some secret bias. It's a position which is not falsifiable and which absolves oneself of having to think critically about their own position.

One man's 'intellectually lazy' is another man's 'educated guess'. Or as this community loves to say about others, "“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

There are plenty of people online playing devil's advocate because one day they too could be rich and they don't want the harsh yoke of government regulation holding them back.

On HN, part of the audience is in closer proximity to that kind of wealth, and their arguments in favour of that status quo reflect this.

Post reply on HN