- cross-posted to:
- technology@hexbear.net
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
- cross-posted to:
- technology@hexbear.net
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
You must log in or register to comment.
Weird question to ask through radio, over.
I just back out when sites pull this and find an alternative.
Wow, I haven’t thought of Daring Fireball for over a decade. Used to read it often back in ~2010. Cool to see he’s still around.
Cookie questions unfortunately are required by law in the EU so don’t meet Gruber’s own definition.
That said the EU needs to force browser makers to respect a set of more granular “do not tracks” settings and then just read the “necessary/functional/settings/marketing” acceptance from there.
My website has a dickbar, because I need to request consent for using Google Analytics. Am I doing it wrong? I’m honestly not sure how I’d be able to avoid showing the dickbar while still having some form of insight into how visitors are interacting with my website.
Exactly, we should be able to set the cookie settings on the phone or computer and have the device apply them to every website, as we see fit, rather than deal with a pop up and subsequent screens every web page to reject cookies.
The DNT header was supposed to do this, but no legislation ever required anyone to respect it and it got dropped. Global Privacy Control seems to be the new try, hopefully it goes better.
Cookie banners are not required if all you use are actually necessary cookies instead of sharing data with 395 of your partners.
Only 395?!?!
But functional cookies also need approval, no?
As far as I know (and I’m not 100 % sure), no. You don’t even need to inform users that you use functional cookies. Most likely because these work for the person using your website, not against them (persisting the session, settings, and so on).
I looked it up; you are right. Strictly necessary cookies do not need consent.
Those banners that include necessary cookies are all misdirection so they can make the whole more confusing.
Like how sites want you to believe ads are now worthless if they are not targeted and being fed all of your private data. Untargeted ads used to remunerate them just fine before that was an option.
Meanwhile you can use the Consent-O-Matic extension. You set your preference once and auto applies to the all websites.
Yeah it sort of works.
The law doesn’t require cookie questions to be dickovers.
No, the dark patterns are terrible.
Enabling an Annoyances list in ublock origin prevents some of these from dicking up, thankfully.
tumblr has had an incredibly annoying one since forever, the login wall. It shows up while scrolling down about half a screen to tell you you can’t browse any more of it without an account. There are greasemonkey scripts to remove it, but every once in a while tumblr changes the way it’s displaying that shit, so the scripts have to be updated.
(Yeah, I know, tumblr. Don’t judge, I used to download a lot of Sims custom content, and a lot of sim modders like tumblr, for a reason I still don’t fully understand)
I do hate those things. Even the BBC uses a dickover on their site…
Wasn’t this guy a fawning Apple fanboy for at least a decade? If I recall correctly, Apple only invites reporters who say nice things about their products to WWDC and he always gets an invite. I’m curious as to why anyone thinks anything he says on tech is notable in any way
I sense that all started with the stupid GDPR popups. If so, then sincere apologies from Europe.
GDPR wasn’t what introduced cookie banners, that was the ePrivacy directive which came before the GDPR. Either way, I’d argue cookie banners are an act of malicious compliance with both of these, as I’m pretty sure they were intended to reduce usage of tracking / analytics / other non-required cookies altogether. The annoying banners are, in my opinion, an effort to make people angry at the EU instead of the ad companies.
I feel like the newsletter signups came first
