top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 321 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It would be nice if the options weren't like "Enable all cookies" and "navigate 4 menus that try to convince you to enable all cookies."

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 192 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It would be better if you could set your preference on the browser once and never have to mess with it again unless you want to have exceptions for specific sites

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    In theory this is done. There is a Do Not Track (DNT) header that is browser defined. Does anyone use it? Do they fuck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 78 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    AFAIK the regulation already says that the "only necessary" should be available with one click. I think the issue is that it's difficult to go after all the small pages that are breaking the law. The big ones like YT of Google already have the 'disable all' button on top, I'm guessing because EU complained.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 184 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    Just make it illegal to sell user data to "data partners", and use cross site tracking.

    Nobody actually "consents" to this shit. They just don't read.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • load more comments (15 replies)
    [–] 141 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm not a fan of the cookie consent popups, but I do appreciate the EU actually trying to do something to protect people's privacy. Seemingly the only major entity to do so right now.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 136 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    A better solution would be to force sites to care about the Do Not Track browser setting that currently does nothing as told by the browsers themselves.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 59 points 2 years ago

    Exactly this. The goal of requiring explicit cookie consent/refusal is admirable, but the implementation of cookie banners is both useless and terrible. We already have a way to communicate to websites whether we're alright with cookies or not, they're called HTTP headers.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 118 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    Just add 2 things:

    1. Cookie settings are possible to set in the browser for all pages.
    2. There's a reject all button on every cookie banner.
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 87 points 2 years ago (3 children)
    1. There’s a reject all button on every cookie banner.

    Most importantly, those banners should be streamiled to look the same at the very least. No highlighing "ACCEPT ALL" while graying out "reject all" nonsense. No swapping the buttons left and right, top to bottom trickery. I'd prefer if the browser takes care of it all, though. I'm already using a plugin for that, though it comes with draw backs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [+] 97 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 95 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    It should be just a browser option.

    You set cookies on or off, ans the browser sends the option in the headers. Websites just need to take the option from the header instead of a banner.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It already exists and is called "do not track".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 87 points 2 years ago

    They should do something about "consent platforms" using various DNS tricks and thousands of domain names to bypass/evade user blocks.

    I wasn't so bothered about some non-invasive ads a few years ago, but I absolutely despise any kind of ad now TBH, and it's mainly down to how persistent some of these platforms are with their evasion tactics

    Also pretty ironic for their popups to talk about "respecting" my privacy when these platforms literally do the opposite of that to show their popup in the first place. I will not support any of them, in any way, on my network.

    As soon as I see a new one appear when browsing, I chuck it into dnsdumpster so it can get recorded with the rest of them, and then block the new list from dnsdumpster (grid icon) on my network.

  • source
  • [–] 80 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    The EU law explicitly says no consent by default and users have to opt in. All of these cookie banners are breaking the law, the law doesn't need to change it just needs enforcing and these banners will disappear. We already have a do not track header and that could be complied with but it's enforcement that is the problem.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 74 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 73 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    I'd be happy to keep the ones that say:

    "we notice you are in europe and we can't use our cookies to track you so you can't come to our website"

    It's good to know sites with policies like that to ensure I never visit them.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 70 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    What if this wasn't a website issue but a browser one. Browsers invented cookies so browsers should be the ones to implement the banner feature. All Developers would then be forced to implement fallbacks to their cookies since the user could turn cookies off. If it was browser based fix then it would be a consistent UI and developers wouldn't be able to do shady shit(at least with cookie consent is concerned)

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 43 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Eh, I think cookies should just be opt-in unless they're absolutely necessary for the site to function.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 42 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not only are they annoying, they go half way to legitimising the theft of user data.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    At least the regulation show us how shady internet is. That banner only shows up if the website is going to use cookies to use your data as a way to make profit. The fact that every website is doing that was eye opening for a lot of people.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    I bet they will keep adding loopholes to keep websites bullying their visitors.

    why bother making legal frameworks when you can't enforce them, there are hundreds of thousands of website including very prominent ones that hide the "reject all cookies" button after a second screen prompt. or flat out force you to opt-out of every second cookie category , just so you give up. they haven't been fined. and they know EU authorities aren't bothered either, so they keep infringing on the GDPR.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [+] 35 points 2 years ago* (8 children)
    load more comments (8 replies)
    [+] 30 points 2 years ago
    [–] 29 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    A start would be to require sites to remember non-consents for at least as long as they remember consents. Why do I have to be asked about cookies by every site every month?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 26 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    A serious law would be like (but in legalese):

    • By default you CANNOT use tracking cookies
    • If you want to use them you should have a Table that classify them based on how much fingerprint do they take
    • Then you have to explicitly ask the user in the most clear and unintrusive way possible if you can track them
    • And the consent should last 30 days max
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That is actually really close to what is present now. The EU never said "use cookie banners" but rather "if you really want to track people, they have to say yes". And most commercial websites decided to make it hard to say no, now everyone blames the EU for doing so. Your second point is not yet implemented, this would be really good for consumers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›