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

Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

legiscope.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 395 posts

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#191

Post by Terr_ »

chatmasta wrote: post #170
Y_Y wrote: post #19

If websites respected Do Not Track then things would be a lot easier. I think we need a right to be listened to. Right now it's enough online to insist on only accepting information in one particular way, like having a noreply email and making people login and submit since shitty web form to respond. Putting your hands over your ears and tape over your mail slot doesn't work in real life, it shouldn't work on the web…

I agree with you 100%, but to be ideologically consistent, we should admit that websites have as much of a right to ignore Do Not Track as we have to ignore their tracking scripts.

> but to be ideologically consistent, we should

Not if it comes from "consumer protection", as opposed to "your computer, your rules."

Treading down the latter too far leads into weird realms like "Hacking? I didn't make your computer do X, I simply sent it messages, it's your fault for not controlling its behavior."

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#192

Post by PittleyDunkin »

creer wrote: post #186
idle_zealot wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cookies necessary to function properly don't require consent. It's only optional ones (ones that benefit the site, not the user).

And these (optional ones) don't require a banner.

How do you figure? How does the user opt in or out without an option to opt in or out?

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#193

Post by PittleyDunkin »

chatmasta wrote: post #170
Y_Y wrote: post #19

If websites respected Do Not Track then things would be a lot easier. I think we need a right to be listened to. Right now it's enough online to insist on only accepting information in one particular way, like having a noreply email and making people login and submit since shitty web form to respond. Putting your hands over your ears and tape over your mail slot doesn't work in real life, it shouldn't work on the web…

I agree with you 100%, but to be ideologically consistent, we should admit that websites have as much of a right to ignore Do Not Track as we have to ignore their tracking scripts.

"Rights" are sort of a hollow concept compared to how society ought to function and are just a crappy workaround our society's inability to resolve basic conflict.

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#194

Post by creer »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #192
creer wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And these (optional ones) don't require a banner.

How do you figure? How does the user opt in or out without an option to opt in or out?

the same way that they interact with any other web page? which never need banners? You don't need a banner to opt in or out (or ignore).

By this I mean the law is what it is but the implementation is deliberately hurting the visitors in the hope that they will click "yeah sure whatever" to be let through to the content. The harm does not come from the legislation but is deliberately anti-user by the web site owner. (Fine, in some cases it might be out of the box and merely lazy.)

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#196

Post by shiroiushi »

ayaros wrote: post #137

Why should websites even be trusted with implementing these banners in the first place? Browser vendors should be responsible for implementing these controls per-origin. Give a little banner pop-up built into Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and the rest. Have it display every time a new site sets a cookie for the first time. Or have it reject every cookie by default, unless I whitelist a site. This would result in a consist…

>Am I going insane or is the world going insane?

You haven't been reading the news lately, have you?

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#197

Post by serial_dev »

freeone3000 wrote: post #98
serial_dev wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I appreciate your workarounds, the issue is not fixed. Almost everyone is going to keep clicking these stupid banners. It’s not okay, it’s not fixed until the rules are adjusted and we have less tracking and’s less pointless banners.

So remove the consent exception against tracking? Simply make it illegal, banner or no?

I don’t know how to fix it, but I know it isn’t fixed now. We have both tracking and cookie banners.

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#198

Post by bryanrasmussen »

My opinion is that cookie banners are so bad because of GDPR and not getting rid of the cookie law when GDPR was enacted.

Then everybody kept their cookie banners around and folded GDPR requirements into it, making it more complex, and more necessary all over the place, and less likely for people to think do we need these cookies or not and do we need to show this banner because of fear of GDPR (potential fines are big!!)

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#199

Post by roughly »

tbrownaw wrote: post #187
RejectedChin wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why they created DoNotTrack initially. Then browsers turned that on by default, ad revenue lowered, and sites/adcompanies decided to ignore it because it was turned on by default.

1. Do not track was not the browser deciding what to do (that would be a similar shape as Firefox multi-account containers and incognito mode). It was a machine-readable way to tell the site what to do; ie the same incorrect model as the click-through banners we have now, just non-interactive. 2. It was intended to be a way to communicate an actual intent from the user. Once it was set by default, it ceased to be an…

> Once it was set by default, it ceased to be an indicator of user intent.

This presumes that it isn’t the default user position. There are three people on the planet who actually want ad tracking, and they’re welcome to go change the setting, but default off was the correct setting.

Re: Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

#200

Post by Gud »

seeknotfind wrote: post #73
serial_dev wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I appreciate your workarounds, the issue is not fixed. Almost everyone is going to keep clicking these stupid banners. It’s not okay, it’s not fixed until the rules are adjusted and we have less tracking and’s less pointless banners.

So many pop-ups these days, for every little thing. Tracking. OS permissions. Browser permissions. Take a survey. Speak to our AI assistant. Do you agree to this. Donate. Sign up. Pay. So many clicks. Used to be viruses, but we have the same result with our complexity.

Most of them I don’t get because I don’t use a user hostile operating system.

And it’s not really complexity, it’s deliberate choices being made.

The internet used to be run by technologists.

Now it’s run by project managers and web monkeys

Post reply on HN