Hacker News Reader

Comment by neon_electro | Hacker News Reader

"govt" didn't develop the specific cookie banner implementation Docker is using.

Yeah the government is far from perfect, but people also treat it as a punching bag. It was companies who used the lack of regulation in tech to abuse cookies, and our government responded with regulation. And now some sites are implementing those rules in very annoying ways. Instead of getting mad at the party who is trying to protect you in this situation, how about directing that anger at the parties who caused the problem in the first place?

I control who sets cookies on my machine. We all do. Don't like them? Block them.

What is gained, SERIOUSLY, by these stupid pop-ups? I'm serious, has anyone analyzed this? It really shows how the heavy hand of govt has ZERO cost/benefit constraint or analysis. Browsing on phones is particularly painful.

I wish we could just set an accept all cookies header in our browser and govt would let these websites then stop displaying these damn notices, banners and consent boxes.

The GPDR ones (if you use euro websites) are getting even crazier.

> What is gained, SERIOUSLY, by these stupid pop-ups?

I appreciate the ability to allow "required" cookies, but reject all other cookies.

I agree that I would absolutely prefer an HTTP header for cookie preferences instead of pop-ups. But the new cookie popups add some value to me, in letting me allow session authentication cookies, and reject all others.

An outright block on all local cookies tends to break authentication for many sites.

Why not have a setting or two in Firefox/Chrome/Safari menu:

  - reject all cookies
  - allow only required cookies
  - allow all cookies

And never to have to fall into 100s of different dark patterns by people who have spent dozens of hours coming up with solutions that would basically trick people in clicking whichever button is highlighted (usually the "accept all cookies" one) just so they can browse some content?

See "do not track" for how that goes. Remember, people that do actively make the choice to design such a popup to trick you, they do not intend to use the solution that respects your interests best. And at the same time, it makes sense that legislation refrains from requiring specific technologies.

Well, that would require some kind of interoperability between the client and the website (like an HTTP header that sends cookie events).

I absolutely would prefer that to the world we have now. I'm all on board, you don't have to convince me it's a good idea.

But, that doesn't exist today. I do prefer having the stupid annoying popup that gives me the option to allow only required cookies to having no choice at all.

The new GDPR compliant cookie popups give me that option. It's a step up above not having the option at all.

> What is gained, SERIOUSLY, by these stupid pop-ups?

Disclosure

I disagree. It's the over-regulation that calls for these pain in the ass implementations.

Downvote all you want, but you're in denial. GDPR and the like are nothing more than "privacy theater". I work in this industry and know it very well. Cookie opt outs or forced opt-ins on publisher pages aren't helping anyone with anything. The whole thing is just a farce so that they can enforce this against bigger tech companies when they want to. They should just tax them outright and save us all the trouble.

No kidding. The first sign is how intrusive it all is. The second sign is how ineffective it is at anything web / crime related people actually care about (normal people).

On HN it's like - go ahead and let me cable company and cell phone company track / sell and target me on my browsing history (wildly intrusive), but random website doing pet necklaces, try to stay on top of all the popups you need to shove at your users (who will all say OK) so you can show your page.

If you can't share the data you buy up the other companies into groups and then are just using it "yourself" etc.

Malicious compliance.

Google is facing a 5B lawsuit over incongnito mode. The fact that someone goes overboard with this crap is not unreasonable.

yeah this is Docker's legal team.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com