←back to thread

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

(nednex.com)
582 points SweetSoftPillow | 1 comments | 22 Oct 25 12:12 UTC | HN request time: 0.21s | 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 #
mvieira38 ◴[22 Oct 25 17:27 UTC] No.45672352[source]▶
Viewing corporations as amoral bots that are justified in squeezing every bit of profit out of humans is exactly what is wrong with our society. Someone in a big tech was the inventor of this dark pattern and they think they're awesome for finding a loophole in the well-meaning regulation, at the cost of the costumer they supposedly should serve. That person is the problem, and so are the people that followed them
replies(7): >>45672800 #>>45673618 #>>45673664 #>>45673735 #>>45673962 #>>45674672 #>>45676084 #
sershe ◴[22 Oct 25 19:26 UTC] No.45673962[source]▶
Why is that person a problem? That is why rule of law exists, ideally, so that we don't run society on arbitrary outraged moral judgement. E.g. many people are morally outraged by presence of any illegal immigrants and others are outraged by any enforcement against undocumented immigrants. If we base decisions on arbitrary outraged moral judgement it's not going to go well.

A "loophole" is only a "loophole" to someone who agrees with yours. And I say it as someone who agrees in this particular instance.

replies(1): >>45674589 #
chowells ◴[22 Oct 25 20:16 UTC] No.45674589[source]▶
That person is a problem because low-trust environments are inherently low-privacy and low-efficiency environments. Allowing a small portion of the population to destroy trust and then justifying it with "well there was no explicit rule against it" is parasitic on the whole society. It's better to stand up and say "this is unacceptable and clearly not what was asked for".
replies(1): >>45677752 #
1. sershe ◴[23 Oct 25 03:03 UTC] No.45677752[source]▶
That is only as far as you or I are concerned. The environment where you first write the rules then someone can arbitrarily come and say nah that's not what we meant (with any consequences) is far worse than any low trust environment. Vague rules with selective/interpretative enforcement is in fact what authoritarian countries like Russia/China tend to use. Disturbing social harmony is illegal and all the right thinking people know it when they see it.