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

Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

noyb.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 195 posts

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#61

Post by TekMol »

gspr wrote: post #54
TekMol wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have thrown quite a lot of work at it. Reading into it, looking up the legalese, building a solution that shows a cookie banner and prevents ads to load before users agreed to it etc. I only gave up after all of that failed. It just became unjustifiable to throw more time at it.

Sounds like about 5 minutes of work to me: https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/7670013?hl=en

Enabling that broke the layout of the site.

It takes the liberty to dynamically inject stuff into the site. Even after the user provided consent. Maybe so the user always has a menu to change their settings.

They seem to try to put that dynamically injected thing below the fold. So maybe blog like sites don't mind.

But on my site it wrecked havoc.

I tried for a while and couldn't fix it.

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#62

Post by solarkraft »

fbn79 wrote: post #26

Cookie banner has ruined the whole web. - Does not protect people (99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them) - Cost money to company (so cost to customers). A simpler browser extension where you manage your preference once far all (default) with the possibility to personilize x site (think like you do for camera permission) would have solved the problem in a real way and without all the hussle.

> 99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them

That's illegal, then.

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#64

Post by makomk »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #34
TekMol wrote: post #23

GDPR broke one of my websites that had tens of thousands of happy users. Users loved it and expressed their delight that the website exists on a daily basis. But when I tried to monetize it without ads and via Patreon instead, nobody paid. Nobody. Recently, Google said they don't think my cookie banner is GDPR conform. But gave no info why and how I could fix it. And turned off Adsense. So I finally took the plunge a…

Is there really no way to monitise an audience with ads without collecting their personal info? That seems more of a problem than GDPR exposing that underlying issue. edit: seems like Google have a non-personalised ad option, but it still uses cookies: > A Non-Personalized Ads solution (Ad Manager Help Center, AdSense Help Center) allows you to present EEA and UK users with a choice between personalized ads and non-p…

Not unless you're a NYT-level big player, and even those don't seem terribly keen on the idea. The fundamental problem is that advertisers want to know that their ads are being shown to actual people who are actually interested in what they're selling rather than bots run by fraudsters with fake websites full of fake traffic, which means tracking and attributing clickthrough, and that alone is enough to count as personally identifiable information for the purposes of laws like the GDPR. Contextual ads and not tracking users in order to select the ads doesn't solve this issue, it just reduces the profitability of advertising.

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#65

Post by happymellon »

TamDenholm wrote: post #49
happymellon wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if they did that it would also make them GDPR compliant. They chose to put up cookie banners as a way of making to seem like the people making the laws told them to do it. > 99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them This is silly. The rule is that people are allowed to opt 𝚘̶𝚞̶𝚝̶ in to tracking. Just because some companies use cookies for this doesn't mean that cookies are banned. If you are u…

> The rule is that people are allowed to opt out of tracking Sorry to correct you, but the rule is that people are allowed to opt-in to tracking. This fundamental misunderstanding is kinda the problem...

Although I would say that this misunderstanding is not the problem.

The problem is that people think the cookies are the problem, when in fact it's not the cookies but the tracking.

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#66

Post by aidanhs »

In the context of the GDPR, I just want to remind people of this thread where a HN user invokes their rights in order to make Spotify back down on a change that would have locked user playlists into their service for no good reason - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764371

(can't be 100% sure this is what made Spotify change direction, but it seems likely)

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#67

Post by lupire »

paol wrote: post #56

This article is excessively negative on the effectiveness of the law. I would say the biggest issue is inconsistent enforcement by DPAs. The other problems are overstated. Believe me, as someone who sees things from the inside of european companies, compliance is still taken very seriously.

Note that is this an activist website, not an EU government web site.

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#68

Post by gpderetta »

fbn79 wrote: post #26

Cookie banner has ruined the whole web. - Does not protect people (99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them) - Cost money to company (so cost to customers). A simpler browser extension where you manage your preference once far all (default) with the possibility to personilize x site (think like you do for camera permission) would have solved the problem in a real way and without all the hussle.

GDPR notices are obnoxious, but they are not the only source of popups, not even the most annoying (most of them are converging to standard patterns, so you can dismiss them quickly). These days many sites have a constant barrage of all kind of popups, browser notifications requests, registration nags, adverts and so on, often on a delayed trigger.

Re: Statement on 4 Years of GDPR

#70

Post by ajsnigrutin »

happymellon wrote: post #42
fbn79 wrote: post #26

Cookie banner has ruined the whole web. - Does not protect people (99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them) - Cost money to company (so cost to customers). A simpler browser extension where you manage your preference once far all (default) with the possibility to personilize x site (think like you do for camera permission) would have solved the problem in a real way and without all the hussle.

And if they did that it would also make them GDPR compliant. They chose to put up cookie banners as a way of making to seem like the people making the laws told them to do it. > 99% are just fake. If you reject cookies you keep get them This is silly. The rule is that people are allowed to opt 𝚘̶𝚞̶𝚝̶ in to tracking. Just because some companies use cookies for this doesn't mean that cookies are banned. If you are u…

Opting-in should be a client feature, not a website feature... make browsers block cookies by default, and then add a button next to the title bar to accept cookies for this webpage (for them to remember the login).
Post reply on HN