Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

    (legiscope.com)
    332 points vegasbrianc | 11 comments | 14 Nov 24 22:23 UTC | HN request time: 1.562s | source | bottom
    Show context
    coldpie ◴[14 Nov 24 22:44 UTC] No.42141996[source]▶
    Hop into your uBlock Origin settings and enable the Cookie Banner filters. Fixed. Enable the Annoyances filters too, while you're in there.

    If you're on iOS, the Kill Sticky bookmarklet does a decent job of cleaning these up without breaking most sites: https://www.smokingonabike.com/2024/01/20/take-back-your-web...

    replies(7): >>42142012 #>>42142024 #>>42142091 #>>42142152 #>>42142175 #>>42142649 #>>42143401 #
    serial_dev ◴[14 Nov 24 23:01 UTC] No.42142175[source]▶
    While I appreciate your workarounds, the issue is not fixed. Almost everyone is going to keep clicking these stupid banners. It’s not okay, it’s not fixed until the rules are adjusted and we have less tracking and’s less pointless banners.
    replies(3): >>42142205 #>>42142290 #>>42142296 #
    1. freeone3000 ◴[14 Nov 24 23:15 UTC] No.42142290[source]▶
    So remove the consent exception against tracking? Simply make it illegal, banner or no?
    replies(3): >>42143599 #>>42144203 #>>42144578 #
    2. aziaziazi ◴[15 Nov 24 02:58 UTC] No.42143599[source]▶
    It’s not a tracking banner but a cookie banner and some applications have a legitimate need for cookies. They abuse what is legitimate, but you can’t ask regulators to check every site without a national (European?) white liste firewall (shouldn’t give them ideas…).

    Also, most tracking used to use cookies but if that becomes illegal there’s others ways.

    replies(1): >>42143627 #
    3. idle_zealot ◴[15 Nov 24 03:05 UTC] No.42143627[source]▶
    Cookies necessary to function properly don't require consent. It's only optional ones (ones that benefit the site, not the user).
    replies(1): >>42143941 #
    4. creer ◴[15 Nov 24 04:21 UTC] No.42143941{3}[source]▶
    And these (optional ones) don't require a banner.
    replies(1): >>42144130 #
    5. PittleyDunkin ◴[15 Nov 24 05:15 UTC] No.42144130{4}[source]▶
    How do you figure? How does the user opt in or out without an option to opt in or out?
    replies(1): >>42144137 #
    6. creer ◴[15 Nov 24 05:17 UTC] No.42144137{5}[source]▶
    the same way that they interact with any other web page? which never need banners? You don't need a banner to opt in or out (or ignore).

    By this I mean the law is what it is but the implementation is deliberately hurting the visitors in the hope that they will click "yeah sure whatever" to be let through to the content. The harm does not come from the legislation but is deliberately anti-user by the web site owner. (Fine, in some cases it might be out of the box and merely lazy.)

    replies(1): >>42146441 #
    7. serial_dev ◴[15 Nov 24 05:33 UTC] No.42144203[source]▶
    I don’t know how to fix it, but I know it isn’t fixed now. We have both tracking and cookie banners.
    8. ikekkdcjkfke ◴[15 Nov 24 07:11 UTC] No.42144578[source]▶
    Do Not Track header? It's the silver bullet but the stakeholders will argue it is invalid and cannot possibly be used to inform the server that the client wishes not to be tracked
    replies(1): >>42144725 #
    9. Earw0rm ◴[15 Nov 24 07:45 UTC] No.42144725[source]▶
    Someone needs to put a stake in those stakeholders.
    replies(1): >>42146282 #
    10. account42 ◴[15 Nov 24 12:26 UTC] No.42146282{3}[source]▶
    The only way to permanently rid yourself of information vampires.
    11. PittleyDunkin ◴[15 Nov 24 12:50 UTC] No.42146441{6}[source]▶
    Right but that's not optional cookies functioning at all, that's simply rejecting them altogether. Why not just say that? It's also a much easier sentiment to agree with than these confusing semantics about optional cookies working fine if you just ignore the banner.