• Kiddkao@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        No. Most of the time there is a Accept all button, but a Manage button and then another popup where you have to uncheck everything and then Save. Pretty annoying, especially on mobile

        • ADTJ@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          You are both correct, the law states that it has to be as easy to opt out as in, but most companies are not implementing it correctly

          • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Yeah, they “accidentally” did it completely wrong because fuck the customers and the law.

  • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    They should do something about “consent platforms” using various DNS tricks and thousands of domain names to bypass/evade user blocks.

    I wasn’t so bothered about some non-invasive ads a few years ago, but I absolutely despise any kind of ad now TBH, and it’s mainly down to how persistent some of these platforms are with their evasion tactics

    Also pretty ironic for their popups to talk about “respecting” my privacy when these platforms literally do the opposite of that to show their popup in the first place. I will not support any of them, in any way, on my network.

    As soon as I see a new one appear when browsing, I chuck it into dnsdumpster so it can get recorded with the rest of them, and then block the new list from dnsdumpster (grid icon) on my network.

  • Hugging Stars@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Just don’t remove it entirely, currently companies will at least pretend to comply.

    bEFORE yOU cONTINUE tO gOOGLE sure is annoying though.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Please do remove it entirely.

      I manufacture data about myself. Businesses want to collect this data for their commercial benefit and profit, without paying me. Cookie splash screens almost provide a method for this to happen legitimately, while still not providing me fair consideration.

      Businesses should be prohibited from collecting user data, from taking value, without paying for it.

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Not only are they annoying, they go half way to legitimising the theft of user data.

  • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Just add 2 things:

    1. Cookie settings are possible to set in the browser for all pages.
    2. There’s a reject all button on every cookie banner.
    • iain@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      No, just ban the collection of user data and selling to 3rd parties. Enormous fines for anyone still doing it. Destroy this entire industry please.

      • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        The EU is primarily pro-business, but that also means being against anti-competitive and underhanded business practices

        The browser thing sounds like a good solution (although there must be a reason why DNT headers weren’t made legally binding, potentially as they wanted to allow people to pick and choose what cookies they allow based on what they thought was “too far” or something but that’s conjecture), however disallowing all user data will likely lead to companies not being able to advertise to people who are interested in their products, something which the EU will see as a negative and would also cause an uptick in scams and misinformation as you see in low quality advertising space at the moment

        • iain@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          This comment got to me really late, probably to Lemmy’s distributed nature.

          But I still want to add: of course business will make more money if you allow more practices, but selling personal data just has too many negative consequences.

          Also low quality advertising? You mean like billboards and in the newspaper? You mean regular advertising?

    • XTornado@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The reject all is already a thing. (Well is not all all, but reject all except necessary but those doesn’t matter much, they are not tracking).

      That said usually is not called this way as obvious, sometimes is just “reject” without the all, “accept only necessary”, “decline”, etc or you have to close the banner etc or they use some other confusing pattern.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Just make it illegal to sell user data to “data partners”, and use cross site tracking.

    Nobody actually “consents” to this shit. They just don’t read.

  • The Cooking Senpai@lemme.discus.sh
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    A serious law would be like (but in legalese):

    • By default you CANNOT use tracking cookies
    • If you want to use them you should have a Table that classify them based on how much fingerprint do they take
    • Then you have to explicitly ask the user in the most clear and unintrusive way possible if you can track them
    • And the consent should last 30 days max
    • TheEntity@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Sounds like the current law, except for the last point. The problem is with enforcing compliance.

    • Holli25@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      That is actually really close to what is present now. The EU never said “use cookie banners” but rather “if you really want to track people, they have to say yes”. And most commercial websites decided to make it hard to say no, now everyone blames the EU for doing so. Your second point is not yet implemented, this would be really good for consumers.

      • nybble41@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        They never should have made opt-in an option in the first place. All the legitimate reasons to store data are already permitted without asking permission (required for the site to function, or storing data the user specifically asked the site to store such as settings). All that’s left is things no one would reasonably choose to consent to if they fully understood the question, so they should have just legislated that the answer is always “no”. That plus a bit more skepticism about what sites really “need” to perform their function properly. (As that function is understood by the user—advertising is not a primary function of most sites, or desired by their users, so “needed for advertising to work” does not make a cookie “functional” in nature. Likewise for “we need this ad revenue to offer the site for free”; you could use that line to justify any kind of monetization of private user data.)

        • Holli25@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          There is a fine and impossible to hit line that businesses have their own interest of surviving and should be able to use data. Like making better suggestions or tracking whether certain changes in their homepage work. This is not required for functioning but vital to companies for succeeding and giving you a better product. However, this should only be done on one site at a time, cross-site tracking oe fingerprinting is what sucks and allows data brokers to exist in the first place.

          No lawyer can hammer into law, what a site needs to function, as it differs by site and is flexible in what people think is necessary. But your examples are good in that they show how sites go way too far to justify their over-the-top tracking. Maybe there really is an easy way to write it in “legalese”, but I don’t see it yet. But I am fully on your site, the current behaviour and practices are bad and unclear for customers.

  • wahming@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    About time. Last time I pointed out the uselessness of cookie banners, the reddit hivemind downvoted me to heck.

  • Adanisi@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    What’s annoying is the “Reject” button hidden on another page. That should be illegal.

  • WholeEnchilada@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    It would be less annoying if you could easily tell it that you don’t want garbage. Instead, when you select your preferences you have to go through a whole list of options. By the time you’re finished customizing your cookie preferences you’ve forgotten why the hell you went to the page and what the hell the page is. It’s ridiculous. It should be as simple as having two buttons: one for accepting the site’s default garbage and another for for rejecting the site’s default garbage.

    • atthecoast@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      The browser extension Consent-o-matic does this and was developed with money from the European Commission.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m not a fan of the cookie consent popups, but I do appreciate the EU actually trying to do something to protect people’s privacy. Seemingly the only major entity to do so right now.

  • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I actually just landed in the EU for the first time since 2014, and i’m honestly quite pleased with the notifications i’m getting (albeit not the ones discussed here). The first time I opened AirBnB since landing, it asked me permission for all the data it wanted to collect for targeted advertizing, and I was actually able to turn off most of it. I wish the US had the same.

    The website popups are quite annoying, but those are easier to control anyway by picking better browsers and extensions.