Hacker News Reader

Comment by pedrocr | Hacker News Reader

It's only a UX disaster because it makes it obvious what horrible things you now have to accept just to read some mildly interesting thing on some crappy site. That may be bad UX for the site but it's actually good UX for the user. Makes you consume less crap.

View on HN

No it doesn't. It teaches you after about 20 times, that all sites are equally bad and now I can just safely ignore these popup notices.

It promotes apathy.

Still, as it prohibits opt-ins by default, it protects your privacy. Even if you just click the popups away.

Speak for yourself, please. I like it and am happy not to waste my time any more on sites that traffic heavily in clickbait.

The UX disaster is that apparently some sites use third-party cookies to store my preferences regarding to what cookies I will allow and which I refuse.

Because my browser rejects all third-party cookies (obviously), they keep losing these preferences and I have to keep telling them that I don't want these cookies.

That’s the thing. Too many websites don’t care about you and just add a random library they didn’t even test. Also these libraries are just made to make something - not to solve a problem. They could test if the can set a cookie before showing anything and assume nothing is accepted by default.

No. It makes me click a lot more checkboxes to do the same stuff I was prepared to do beforehand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com