51–60 of 197 posts
I feel like a reasonable tweak to GDPR is to require that if a site has an "accept all" button, it needs an equally (or more) prominent "reject non-essential" button.
Many websites seem to break this law.
What could you possibly mean? Government made it so much better. How else would you know that the cookies (you're going to consent to anyway) are being put on your computer?
In my personal experience, people who hate the GDPR are typically not EU citizens. I am an EU citizen and I strongly approve of GDPR. Is it perfect? No. Is it a step in the right direction? Yes.
i liked how the reddit popup had nothing to do with cookie consent and the second site didnt have any popups at all - author could have cherry picked a bad example but for some reason gave us this?
A reminder that websites wouldn't need to do this if their intention wasn't to track you all over the internet. It's google, facebook etc that are trying to shove these things down your throat, not the EU.
Instead of hating the EU, how about directing your hate towards the bad players of the web? Cookie banners are not the fault of the EU, but the fault of companies disrespecting privacy rights and pushing data collection, ads and all possible shady growth hacking strategies towards the user. I am glad that a government body actually made this possible and made visible how horrible the internet is.
A bad bandaid is still a bad thing, regardless of what it is covering up. Cookies are table stakes on the internet. This is the wrong solution to a completely different problem.
Any other cookies are not "table stakes".
This is one of the reasons why Social Networks are eating websites. Most people get a bad experience browsing the internet. Yeah, I get it, we know Hacker News, and other good websites. But my dad just want to read news about sports and politics, it's much easier to do it through Facebook posts than to open a browser and get annoyed by ads, popups, etc. Same for young people: I can get fun with TikTok and YouTube, wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, let's blame EU for websites spying on you If website uses cookies just for legit purposes (e.g auth, language choice), then it doesn't need to show cookie consent. Webmasters should get awarness on this or stop spying
So you’re a company with a web property. Your lawyers tell you you have two options: 1. Ensure that you’re perfectly abiding by all “legit purposes” and be prepared to update your policies and software each time those change, at the risk of huge fines. Or, 2. Just put an annoying banner up and have no risk. Which do you do? Government created this problem. Yes, it was in response to bad behavior from industry, but th…
In fact, many of the websites that have these obnoxious cookie banners are NOT in compliance because don't offer a simple and unambiguous opt-out option.
These cookie banners and cookie popups are intentionally made to be maximally annoying. That's not good faith behavior by companies. That's malicious and an attempt to get consumers to blame regulators for breaking their browsing experience. The worst thing is that some people totally fall for it!