←back to thread

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

(legiscope.com)
332 points vegasbrianc | 2 comments | 14 Nov 24 22:23 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
guywithahat ◴[14 Nov 24 22:51 UTC] No.42142070[source]▶
The whole thing is a colossal waste too, it was a law written by people who don't understand tech for special interest groups who don't want to actually make things better.

If you don't want a website doing something on your computer, you start with the browser, not the website.

replies(6): >>42142140 #>>42142206 #>>42142213 #>>42142536 #>>42145217 #>>42146713 #
RejectedChin ◴[14 Nov 24 23:06 UTC] No.42142213[source]▶
That's why they created DoNotTrack initially. Then browsers turned that on by default, ad revenue lowered, and sites/adcompanies decided to ignore it because it was turned on by default.
replies(2): >>42142331 #>>42143967 #
1. tbrownaw ◴[15 Nov 24 04:29 UTC] No.42143967[source]▶
1. Do not track was not the browser deciding what to do (that would be a similar shape as Firefox multi-account containers and incognito mode). It was a machine-readable way to tell the site what to do; ie the same incorrect model as the click-through banners we have now, just non-interactive.

2. It was intended to be a way to communicate an actual intent from the user. Once it was set by default, it ceased to be an indicator of user intent.

replies(1): >>42144262 #
2. roughly ◴[15 Nov 24 05:50 UTC] No.42144262[source]▶
> Once it was set by default, it ceased to be an indicator of user intent.

This presumes that it isn’t the default user position. There are three people on the planet who actually want ad tracking, and they’re welcome to go change the setting, but default off was the correct setting.