←back to thread

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

(legiscope.com)
332 points vegasbrianc | 1 comments | 14 Nov 24 22:23 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ryandrake ◴[14 Nov 24 22:58 UTC] No.42142148[source]▶
People blame the cookie banners themselves or the legislation that "made them necessary" but somehow never seem to blame the web companies for doing the naughty things on their websites that make them subject to the law.

The "cookie banner problem" exists because it's primarily end users that are shouldering the burden of them, and not the companies. For the company, it's a one time JIRA ticket for a junior software engineer to code up a banner. For everyone else, it's thousands of wasted seconds per year. Make the law hit companies where it hurts: their balance sheets.

replies(11): >>42142202 #>>42142212 #>>42142251 #>>42142326 #>>42142345 #>>42142452 #>>42142625 #>>42143095 #>>42143203 #>>42144003 #>>42144503 #
legitster ◴[14 Nov 24 23:04 UTC] No.42142202[source]▶
> never seem to blame the web companies for doing the naughty things on their websites

Part of the problem is that the law didn't seek to distinguish between tame first-party cookies and the really naughty third-party cookies so the burden is equal regardless of how malicious the service is.

> For the company, it's a one time JIRA ticket for a junior software engineer to code up a banner.

This is actually not true. There's a lot more that goes into a cookie banner than you might realize, and there's now an industry dominated by a small handful of players (Osano vs OneTrust)

replies(7): >>42142217 #>>42142245 #>>42142273 #>>42142291 #>>42142347 #>>42142352 #>>42150500 #
ryandrake ◴[14 Nov 24 23:15 UTC] No.42142291[source]▶
> Part of the problem is that the law didn't seek to distinguish between tame first-party tokens and the really naughty third-party tokens

Maybe I'm an outlier, but ideally I don't want them collecting any "tokens" without my consent. I don't care if they're first party or third party or birthday party. I should be able to browse web sites in peace without some company collecting anything. If the web site doesn't work exactly the way I'd expect because I did not provide that consent, then that's on me.

replies(2): >>42144670 #>>42149361 #
self_awareness ◴[15 Nov 24 07:32 UTC] No.42144670{3}[source]▶
Well that's a thought everyone can identify with, but objectively speaking, they're paying with their energy to build the website, and paying their money to host it. Yet you would want to browse it for no cost at all.

How to resolve this?

replies(1): >>42145349 #
1. hnbad ◴[15 Nov 24 09:45 UTC] No.42145349{4}[source]▶
You're framing website use as transactional but for financial transactions we literally require informed consent.

Also you seem to be operating under the assumption that your personal data is something that can be used as payment. The GDPR literally does not allow that just as human rights don't allow committing yourself to indentured servitude. You can't sign away your rights. If you share personal data you continue to have rights to that data and can revoke your consent. It doesn't stop being your data just because you handed it over, even if you did so willingly.

If your business model can't work without exploiting your users' personal data, your business model no longer works and it's your job to find a new business model that does. There are plenty of business models that only worked when indentured servitude was legal (let's not have the debate about prison labor in the US) and I'm sure you would agree that it's fine for those business models to no longer work. It's part of the risk of doing business. Innovate. Disrupt. Or perish.