dickover — a modal panel, popover, or curtain presented by a website or app, deliberately obscuring its own content to frustrate the user with an unwanted, unnecessary, mandatory interaction; e.g. asking the user to accept “cookies”, subscribe to a newsletter, install the website’s mobile app, agree to terms of service, or anything else that the user couldn’t give two shits about.
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.
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).
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.
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.