←back to thread

Internet's biggest annoyance: Cookie laws should target browsers, not websites

(nednex.com)
582 points SweetSoftPillow | 5 comments | 22 Oct 25 12:12 UTC | HN request time: 1.087s | source
Show context
michaelmauderer ◴[22 Oct 25 12:36 UTC] No.45668112[source]▶
The problem here is not the law, but malicious compliance by websites that don't want to give up tracking.

"Spend Five Minutes in a Menu of Legalese" is not the intended alternative to "Accept All". "Decline All" is! And this is starting to be enforced through the courts, so you're increasingly seeing the "Decline All" option right away. As it should be. https://www.techspot.com/news/108043-german-court-takes-stan...

Of course, also respecting a Do-Not-Track header and avoiding the cookie banner entirely while not tracking the user, would be even better.

replies(27): >>45668188 #>>45668227 #>>45668253 #>>45668318 #>>45668333 #>>45668375 #>>45668478 #>>45668528 #>>45668587 #>>45668695 #>>45668802 #>>45668844 #>>45669149 #>>45669369 #>>45669513 #>>45669674 #>>45670524 #>>45670593 #>>45670822 #>>45670839 #>>45671739 #>>45671750 #>>45673134 #>>45673283 #>>45674480 #>>45675431 #>>45678865 #
crazygringo ◴[22 Oct 25 12:52 UTC] No.45668318[source]▶
No, the problem is 100% the law, because it was written in a way that allows this type of malicious compliance.

Laws need to be written well to achieve good outcomes. If the law allows for malicious compliance, it is a badly written law.

The sites are just trying to maximize profit, as anyone could predict. So write better laws.

replies(20): >>45668365 #>>45668389 #>>45668443 #>>45668540 #>>45668630 #>>45668809 #>>45668823 #>>45668886 #>>45669084 #>>45669675 #>>45670704 #>>45671579 #>>45672352 #>>45672518 #>>45672991 #>>45673713 #>>45674575 #>>45675918 #>>45676040 #>>45676756 #
michaelmauderer ◴[22 Oct 25 13:02 UTC] No.45668443[source]▶
But the courts are saying: the law does NOT allow this.

So maybe “malicious compliance” is a misnomer. We should just call it "illegal dark pattern".

replies(4): >>45668518 #>>45668736 #>>45668841 #>>45671429 #
narag ◴[22 Oct 25 13:07 UTC] No.45668518[source]▶
Lawmakers must consider enforcement. What are the practical consequences of those rulings?
replies(3): >>45668828 #>>45668951 #>>45670393 #
seszett ◴[22 Oct 25 13:27 UTC] No.45668828[source]▶
Well almost all websites in France do the legal thing now with an obvious "decline all" button, which was not the case at first.

It took just a pair of ruling that made it clear this illegal pattern was going to actually be cracked down upon, and now these popups are just a small annoyance rather than the absolutely enraging trap that they were at first.

Of course I still wish they were unnecessary, but they serve as a reminder that these websites are still trying to prey upon their visitors.

replies(1): >>45668896 #
1. crazygringo ◴[22 Oct 25 13:32 UTC] No.45668896[source]▶
> now these popups are just a small annoyance rather than the absolutely enraging trap

Disagree. The popup is the enraging problem. It's not a small annoyance. I click them multiple times every single day and it's ludicrous.

I don't need a "reminder". The last thing I want is some "reminder" day after day after day. I want a law that protects consumers in the first place.

replies(2): >>45669035 #>>45676164 #
2. Kbelicius ◴[22 Oct 25 13:42 UTC] No.45669035[source]▶
> Disagree. The popup is the enraging problem. It's not a small annoyance. I click them multiple times every single day and it's ludicrous.

Then don't visit webpages that do illegal things and are hostile to their users.

> I want a law that protects consumers in the first place.

This is that law.

replies(1): >>45670836 #
3. crazygringo ◴[22 Oct 25 15:42 UTC] No.45670836[source]▶
That's like saying "don't visit places where people get murdered if you don't want to get murdered."

How about you just enforce consumer protections for everyone? Because that is clearly not the law.

replies(1): >>45673540 #
4. Kbelicius ◴[22 Oct 25 18:53 UTC] No.45673540{3}[source]▶
> That's like saying "don't visit places where people get murdered if you don't want to get murdered."

Nope. Murder is an action after which the victim can not make any more actions. It would be like saying "don't go to the bakery where they spit in your food and slap you in the face every time you order something". You are enraged by the behavior of the websites you visit and you still keep going there every day. Either you are a masochist or "voting with your wallet" or, in this instance with you attention, doesn't really work. Why do you give your attention to those that treat you like shit?

> How about you just enforce consumer protections for everyone?

They are. What gave you the idea they aren't? Because some pages still behave illegally? You understand that murder still happens?

> Because that is clearly not the law.

Do you know anything about GDPR? Because it seems that you do not. Could you point to the text of the regulation that you object to? I'll wait but I'm sure I'll be waiting for godot here.

5. mort96 ◴[22 Oct 25 22:52 UTC] No.45676164[source]▶
I agree. These websites should just not spy on me and therefore not have a pop-up.

But in the absence of that? I appreciate at least being asked for my consent so that I can press the "I do not consent to being tracked" button. It shouldn't exist in the first place, but since these websites are unwilling to just not spy on people, this seems like the next best thing.