71–80 of 86 posts
Sounds like they are adding cookies to their marketing landing pages for enterprise ads. Not that they are running ads on GitHub. Is there something more to this?
No, but people are looking for any reason to claim that MS has ruined GitHub so that the loud Twitter predictions they made during the acquisition aren't as embarrassing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as I loathe the cookie warnings, I'm constantly amazed at situations that don't avoid them. For example: there is no reason that PayPal needs to serve 3rd party cookies in a payment flow. I've actually started to reject nonessential cookies most of the time now. Doubt it matters at all.
Payment gateway integrations might be one of the few legitimate non-advertising use cases I can think of for 3rd party cookies. What makes you say they don't need them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no laws in Australia requiring cookie banners, and yet I get hit with them constantly. So the law is clearly not the reason for these annoying banners.
The EU laws require the banners to be shown to all EU citizens regardless of the country they're in, right? I think the only way to be absolutely safe is to show cookie banners everywhere.
On one hand, it sounds like it's only on marketing pages, which I never visit anyways. On the other hand, in December 2020, they said "We are also committing that going forward, we will only use cookies that are required for us to serve GitHub.com" and apparently in corporate terms, a "commitment" lasts less than two years now. Presumably the main change here is Nat made this commitment and Nat has since left Microso…
As long as it only affects the enterprise marketing pages (which, like you, I do not use) and it is clearly documented (unfortunately some of the documentation changes seem confusing, and I am not the only one who thinks that), then I have no problem with this.
(I do not use GitHub for my own projects, but I do use it to view other projects and to communicate with other projects that do use GitHub. In future I might also set up mirrors of my projects on GitHub, but the main working of the project will not be on GitHub.)
There are tons of open source GitHub alternatives, why does opensource still use GitHub? Why does anyone?
I would not recommend using GitLab unless it is not the only mirror of your project (it is acceptable if you are mirroring it on something else, too). If you do want alternatives, you may consider Codeberg, NotABug, and/or Sourcehut. The reason I exclude GitLab is because it cannot display the files unless JavaScripts are enabled (or if you use the git protocol, which is kind of confusing compared with fossil) (it is OK if it uses JavaScript for other functions as long as the files can be viewed without it) (this is not a problem if there are other mirrors, since you can view the mirrors instead).
I don't understand why people care about cookies. The stupid cookie banners are an actual nuisance.
Only consent is needed for cookies that aren't strictly necessary. https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ If a site is asking for consent, they're either idiots who don't understand what the law requires of them or they intend on tracking their users.
- Needing writing a documentation (which is viewable even if cookies, CSS, and JavaScripts are disabled) about what each cookies means. (This includes both necessary and unnecessary cookies.)
- Writing a better web browser(s) with more user controls, and can more easily modify it and recompile, etc. (This way, you can more easily adjust individual cookies more finely, including which cookies are enabled, duration overrides, values, etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I understand it, the GDPR did not make web browsing a worse experience. Rather, folks tasked with compliance at a few companies came up with a horrible solution that probably doesn't actually comply, and everyone started copying it. GDPR requires consent; it doesn't require you to come up with the most obnoxious way to obtain it.
Can you think of another way to implement it that wouldn't be just as obnoxious though? I feel like anything that could be perceived as unobtrusive could just as likely be seen as trying to hide or minimize the presence of the banner which might be construed as a violation of the law. I feel like EU regulators should have worked with web standards committees to add a technical means and requirement to classify cookie…
If it were to see widespread adoption then all you would have to do is change a setting in your browser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only consent is needed for cookies that aren't strictly necessary. https://gdpr.eu/cookies/ If a site is asking for consent, they're either idiots who don't understand what the law requires of them or they intend on tracking their users.
How do I grant universal consent to be tracked so that I can browse the web in peace? The law failed to consider this and made the browsing experience considerably worse for those of us who couldn't care less about being tracked. Not to mention teaching users who are not tech-savvy to blindly click "I Accept" and "I Agree" without thinking about it which is an absolute disaster since such users cannot distinguish bet…
developers are typically unreachable to marketers. This will be MSFT unlocking a rare audience that will fetch top dollars from enterprise advertisers, right before cookies go out of standard. This move, like the exclusive Netflix ads inventory, makes it clear that MSFT sees ads as a big driver to business growth.
I can't imagine many developers opting in.
People seem outraged about the marketing cookies. Genuine question: Why?
Imagine if a store put a tiny sticker on anyone who stopped by to look at their products. Not this person is identifiable as "stopped to look at product X" whenever they visit other stores from the same owner.
Personally, it just creeps me out, even though it's basically the norm online.