• fletcher_bosom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    Website operators don’t want to have to display cookie banners and users don’t want to see them. So what are we doing?

    • orclev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      4 days ago

      Website operators don’t want to have to display cookie banners

      This is false. If they didn’t want to display the banners they could literally remove them, there’s absolutely nothing requiring them as long as they don’t track your behavior. They refuse to give up tracking so they add the banners to annoy visitors and hopefully trick some of them into accidentally opting into tracking. It’s an abusive manipulation of a loophole in the GDPR. If they really hated the banners they could just not track you but they rather make it your problem.

      • freebee@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        “trick some of them accidentally” is definitely underestimating average users. In my experience 95% + of all users click consent once, all is stored forever and they’ll never see the banner again, for sure not on the same device. They don’t do adblocking, no automatic cookie deleting, in fact no browser extensions at all. The average fediverse user is a weird mix of a 1990’s internet poweruser with a today tech kid trying to make it into the future technologies on their own terms and by faaaar not an average user visiting average website on average devices with average browsers and configurations. In short: most people don’t experience this ‘problem’ like us, because they consent by default to anything you throw at them and are then in the gated tracking paradise where there’s barely any cookienagging, visiting the same handful of websites all the time anyway.

    • warm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      4 days ago

      Websites did it to themselves by abusing cookies to track users. Instead of consent popups though, the EU should have just blanket banned tracking in general.

    • Maestro@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 days ago

      If website operators didn’t want to ask for consent, they should stop trying to profit for your behavioral data. But they want to sell your data and have de it from you. That’s the only thing not allowed. There are plenty of sites that use cookies and don’t need to show a consent banner.

    • fonix232@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      I’d honestly be so much happier if it was a permission request similar to e.g. accessing location or microphone access, for a number of reasons:

      • would be easier to manage as it would end up being a single interface handled by the browser instead of a per-website implementation
      • no differently worded, intentionally vague bullshit options that are designed to entrap the user
      • no struggle finding the enable/disable option after clicking either accept or decline
      • the ability to automatically provide a default answer that gets around to the fucking popup blocking 2/3 of the page
    • lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 days ago

      Website operators don’t want to have to display cookie banners and users don’t want to see them. So what are we doing?

      Like the other comment, I also disagree with that. Most websites show them to make it hard to decline the tracking.

      But I once saw a website (I think, it was the German idealo.de) which checked for the (now deprecated) "Do Not Track" HTTP header. If it was there, it then did not show the banner. I liked that solution.

      • dogs0n@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        It’d be nice if that header was default for all users, unfortunately it can (and has, probably) end up being just another data point for uniquely identifying you.

        Probably will never be default since 99% people use Chrome, and we know who owns that…

        Extensions seem the only way without making your traffic more unique.

    • AstaKask@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Website operators don’t have to display cookie banners. They can just not use tracking/ad cookies. Simple af.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      4 days ago

      This is the EU’s law, “See how much we did to protect you!” It security theatre.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Ah yes the classic “You’re making me hit you, I don’t want to, but you’re making me do this”. Maybe instead of blaming the flawed attempt at protecting you from abuse you instead blame the ones doing the abusing.