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

Please stop putting cookie pop-ups on your website (2022)

olivergrimsley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 211 posts

Re: Please stop putting cookie pop-ups on your website (2022)

#191

Post by ruthmarx »

GJim wrote: post #187
ruthmarx wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There’s a split between people blaming the business and blaming the EU. I mainly just see Europeans defending it as not the EU, and I see that as patriotism and not an argument from merit. I have to see it that way because blaming the businesses for engaging in a legal activity and doing something mandated by regulation is crazy to me. > Most aren’t. The GDPR says explicitly that withdrawing consent must be at leas…

> I see that as patriotism Don't take the piss! It's about a _GENERAL_ data protection act that prevents companies and jobsworths having free rein to your personal data. This has sweet FA to do with patriotism as you know perfectly well.

Not taking the piss, it's my genuine position after seeing this discussions on HN for years.

> It's about a _GENERAL_ data protection act that prevents companies and jobsworths having free rein to your personal data.

The context here is limited to assigning blame/credit for the cookie popups.

> This has sweet FA to do with patriotism as you know perfectly well.

Tribalism then.

Re: Please stop putting cookie pop-ups on your website (2022)

#192

Post by latexr »

ruthmarx wrote: post #188
latexr wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make a good product that does not rely on exploiting user data. Advertise in relevant locations without tracking (e.g. if you sell cars, advertise on a car-centric website/forum/magazine).

You don't have to reply to every comment I make in reply to someone else in this thread, just FYI. > Make a good product that does not rely on exploiting user data. Advertise in relevant locations without tracking (e.g. if you sell cars, advertise on a car-centric website/forum/magazine). No, none of this is a light pattern. It's just abstaining from the activity entirely.

What are you on about? Do you realise you replied to me first, and the two times I replied to you responding to someone else were on the same thread that goes back to my original comment? No one’s after you, I just looked at the child replies in my post. Honestly I didn’t even realise I was replying to the same person. Complaining about it happening twice is quite the persecution complex.

Re: Please stop putting cookie pop-ups on your website (2022)

#193

Post by floydnoel »

latexr wrote: post #175
unmole wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize the (Official EU) website you linked to has a cookie banner, right?

That is addressed right at the top of the page on a prominent explanatory banner with a blocky information icon : > Use of the cookie consent kit is mandatory on each page of the DGs and executive agencies-owned websites, regardless of the cookies used. I really wish people made a minimum of effort to engage in good faith. It took you longer to post your comment than it would’ve taken to read that notice.

why is it mandatory?

Re: Please stop putting cookie pop-ups on your website (2022)

#194

Post by troupo »

ruthmarx wrote: post #189
troupo wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a business that doesn't rely on pervasive and invasive tracking, and on wholesale sales of that data to thousands of "partners"?

That's not a light pattern, that's giving up the activity entirely. If an activity is explicitly legal, even with regulations, then there should be a light pattern for that activity is there is a dark pattern. Look at selling cigarettes in the 80s. A dark pattern would be trying to influence kids on the low, which mascots like Joe Camel. A light pattern would not be abstaining from selling cigarettes entirely, analog…

> That's not a light pattern, that's giving up the activity entirely.

What's not right? Giving up pervasive and invasive tracking and selling user data?

> but rather voluntarily adding labels to packaging and taking other precautions.

GDPR, literally, is: if you use data not strictly required for the functioning of your business, ask user for consent.

How is this not a "light pattern"?

Re: Please stop putting cookie pop-ups on your website (2022)

#195

Post by latexr »

ruthmarx wrote: post #190
latexr wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mainly just see Europeans defending it as not the EU, and I see that as patriotism and not an argument from merit. That’s absurd. By that logic Europeans would also have defended Chat Control, but that wasn’t the case. A person doesn’t become a blind zealot because they think differently from you. > I have to see it that way No, you choose to see it that way. > blaming the businesses for engaging in a legal activ…

> That’s absurd. It's hardly absurd, it's a common pattern in nations and online rhetoric. > By that logic Europeans would also have defended Chat Control, but that wasn’t the case. Just because people may defend one thing out of tribalism doesn't mean they would defend everything out of tribalism. It's specifically EU users on HN I see trying ti shift the blame to corporations. I find it bizarre, honestly. Correlati…

> It's specifically EU users on HN I see trying ti shift the blame to corporations.

You keep saying that. How do you know? Even if you looked at the profile of everyone you interacted with, I doubt you’d be able to ascertain nationality.

> I find it bizarre, honestly.

And I find it bizarre that someone would kowtow to corporations purposefully exploiting them, but I’m not going to pretend to know where those people live and accuse them of tribalism.

> This is why you shift the goalposts.

I’m not sure you understand what an example is. They are made so we can find a common ground on a subject and discuss the merits of an idea, not to change the subject. They are often employed when agreement is hard to reach on some specific matter and are meant to bring a more general concept into light so both parties can understand where the root of the disagreement comes from.

> It's been common, i.e. the norm, since the laws came into effect.

You are wildly misinformed. If they had been the norm, there wouldn’t have been so many cases of complaints and organisations created specifically to combat those.

But I don’t think continuing to converse with you is a good use of anyone’s time. There’s no point in discussing when the other party is already locked in a predetermined belief that whoever disagrees with them is doing so out of tribalism.

Re: Please stop putting cookie pop-ups on your website (2022)

#196

Post by ruthmarx »

troupo wrote: post #194
ruthmarx wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a light pattern, that's giving up the activity entirely. If an activity is explicitly legal, even with regulations, then there should be a light pattern for that activity is there is a dark pattern. Look at selling cigarettes in the 80s. A dark pattern would be trying to influence kids on the low, which mascots like Joe Camel. A light pattern would not be abstaining from selling cigarettes entirely, analog…

> That's not a light pattern, that's giving up the activity entirely. What's not right? Giving up pervasive and invasive tracking and selling user data? > but rather voluntarily adding labels to packaging and taking other precautions. GDPR, literally, is: if you use data not strictly required for the functioning of your business, ask user for consent. How is this not a "light pattern"?

> What's not right? Giving up pervasive and invasive tracking and selling user data?

Exactly. Abstaining isn't a light pattern. A light pattern would be doing the thing in a non malicious way.

> GDPR, literally, is: if you use data not strictly required for the functioning of your business, ask user for consent.

You're missing the point. You were alleging businesses are using dark patterns while being in compliance with the law. I'm asking what a light pattern would be for collecting as much data as possible which is an explicitly legal activity as long as the regulations are followed.

You answered not engaging in that activity at all, which is not an answer.

Re: Please stop putting cookie pop-ups on your website (2022)

#197

Post by ruthmarx »

latexr wrote: post #192
ruthmarx wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to reply to every comment I make in reply to someone else in this thread, just FYI. > Make a good product that does not rely on exploiting user data. Advertise in relevant locations without tracking (e.g. if you sell cars, advertise on a car-centric website/forum/magazine). No, none of this is a light pattern. It's just abstaining from the activity entirely.

What are you on about? Do you realise you replied to me first, and the two times I replied to you responding to someone else were on the same thread that goes back to my original comment? No one’s after you, I just looked at the child replies in my post. Honestly I didn’t even realise I was replying to the same person. Complaining about it happening twice is quite the persecution complex.

> What are you on about?

Exactly what you say here:

> the two times I replied to you responding to someone else

---

> Honestly I didn’t even realise I was replying to the same person.

I find that very odd, not to pay attention to who you are replying to, but OK.

> quite the persecution complex.

Nah. It's a pretty common behavior or 'pattern' that some people who feel strongly about a position will reply to other child comments by a person they are debating with.

I find it frustrating because it normally leads to a lot of redundancy, with the same points being repeated in multiple places, just wasting time.

I mistakenly thought that's what you were doing. I apologize.

Re: Please stop putting cookie pop-ups on your website (2022)

#198

Post by ruthmarx »

latexr wrote: post #195
ruthmarx wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s absurd. It's hardly absurd, it's a common pattern in nations and online rhetoric. > By that logic Europeans would also have defended Chat Control, but that wasn’t the case. Just because people may defend one thing out of tribalism doesn't mean they would defend everything out of tribalism. It's specifically EU users on HN I see trying ti shift the blame to corporations. I find it bizarre, honestly. Correlati…

> It's specifically EU users on HN I see trying ti shift the blame to corporations. You keep saying that. How do you know? Even if you looked at the profile of everyone you interacted with, I doubt you’d be able to ascertain nationality. > I find it bizarre, honestly. And I find it bizarre that someone would kowtow to corporations purposefully exploiting them, but I’m not going to pretend to know where those people l…

> You keep saying that. How do you know?

Because I find the position not to blame the EU so baffling and irrational that I was curious about the people who advocate that position. The first few times I checked the profiles it was very clearly EU users. I kept checking, while being very aware of and cautious of falling prey to confirmation bias, yet the same pattern kept holding.

> Even if you looked at the profile of everyone you interacted with, I doubt you’d be able to ascertain nationality.

Enough EU users freely comment in their history that they are in the EU somewhere, because enough threads come up where it's relevant. It's really not that hard to ascertain nationality of HN profiles with activity at all.

> And I find it bizarre that someone would kowtow to corporations purposefully exploiting them,

No one is doing that in a context relevant to this thread. It's literally a red herring.

The issue to who gets the blame/credit for the cookie popups. That's it.

> I’m not sure you understand what an example is.

It's been so hard for me to bite my tongue and withhold snark due to your positions, and yet here you give in to the temptation freely. Kind of frustrating. Please remember the HN guidelines.

> They are made so we can find a common ground on a subject and discuss the merits of an idea, not to change the subject.

Exactly, but to use an analogy you're discussing how people speeding are a problem while everyone else is complaining about the sirens of a police unit specifically to catch speeders are too loud.

Your position is a red herring. You keep talking about the immoral yet explicitly legal practices of these companies, and it's entirely irrelevant. As long as those companies are engaging in legal activities, then the blame for how they engage with them goes to the regulators.

Re: Please stop putting cookie pop-ups on your website (2022)

#199

Post by ruthmarx »

joenot443 wrote: post #146
latexr wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you actually read what these pop-ups says, then you understand why they are there, and why the problem with the laws isn't that it's annoying, but that it is not much more restrictive. Worse, people (including on HN) actively blaming the EU for it. It’s like having a law mandating people are informed when there’s poison in their drink, then seeing people complain about the warning labels everywhere. The label…

Legislation by the EU is why the popups are there. It really is that simple.

It really is that simple. It's bizarre the way people try to blame companies engaging in legal activities for doing something the EU specifically requires them to do.

Re: Please stop putting cookie pop-ups on your website (2022)

#200

Post by [deleted] »

unmole wrote: post #177
latexr wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is explained right at the top of the page : > Use of the cookie consent kit is mandatory on each page of the DGs and executive agencies-owned websites, regardless of the cookies used. Let’s please engage in good-faith conversation. If you don’t read a prominent explanatory banner with a blocky information icon at the top of an explanatory page, I don’t know what to tell you.

You said: > Don’t invade user’s privacy and you don’t need cookie banners. But when it's pointed out all EU websites use cookie banners, you shift goalposts and pretend that others are engaging in bad faith.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN