The argument is so tired. It is unconvincing.
Whereas it would be perfectly valid to dislike the opinion because it is published in a lefty publication, the web design annoyances described really have little to do with the political stance of the publisher. The op-ed author likely has no control over the web design.
This site like "99.9%" of other sites looks just fine in the links text-only browser. The annoyances of web design usually depend in part on the browser. If one uses a browser where Javascipt, CSS, images and cookies are enabled, then one is at the whim of "web developers". Less so if one is using a simple HTML viewer like links, w3m, reader mode or some other way to read the text of the page.
HN uses some Javascript. Does that mean every HN commenter favours Javascript. I make zero use of the Javascript that is in HN pages. I use a text-only browser. I do not see indented comment threading or text colours. Because I publish opinions on HN does not mean I use Javascript or even that I necessarily approve of HN's graphical design, whatever it may be.
EDIT: Wow, HN just changed the title. It no longer matches the title chosen by the author. The author must be hitting a nerve with HN's "tech" worker reader base. I used the internet in the late 80s while there was still a rule against advertising and commercial activity. It was amazing. I used the www when it went public in 1993. There was generally no advertising and certainly no surveilance like today.
Jacobinmag it's not your average website. It's full on communism over there. So they should guard better against critiques like "some animals (our righteous website) are more equal than others (their commercial websites)"
But upon clicking around around further the author was indeed completely unaware of the irony of its own article.
I believe the meme format is "you want to improve society somewhat yet you participate in it".
I don't mean to sound rude, but your response sounds a bit presumptuous and complacent with hypocrisy.
Cookie consent notices are the fault of lacking browser standards, not individual web sites.
I can read the whole article without any distraction, except for the bright red banner which remains at the top.
“Need” here is overdetermined. From a primordial perspective I suppose you could argue the design “force[s]” users to take certain actions, but it’s not like there isn’t a substantive and more intellectually honest take, which is that the modals are annoying but unextraordinary and in-line with standard legal expectations and design practices.
If you're referring to GDPR and ePrivacy, then there's literally no reason to show that consent form for cookies that are strictly required for the functioning of your site.
> and in-line with standard legal expectations and design practices.
False on the legal expectation.
Sadly true on the design practices.
This is why I guard against presumption: so I don’t make references to forms of European legislation (GDPR and ePrivacy) as if they are the singular authorities governing internet privacy law, or that legal expectations are formulated exclusively through civil law.
You’re out of your depth here.
> You’re out of your depth here.
Don't be a vague asshole. If you want to talk about real laws, don't make people play guessing games, especially when you're excusing these sites' bad behavior. If you're basing your argument on theoretical laws, then it's not the other person that's out of their depth.
You may call it “playing guessing games,” but to those with domain-specific knowledge, glaring errors with respect to fundamental legal concepts are obvious and indicates a lack of expertise (e.g. here, not understanding the consequences of the jurisdiction of their named laws to the soundness of their argument) and a possible violation of the law (though the present situation does not rise to that level).
Calling out false expertise is part of the self-regulating nature of the professions, even if doing so can be reasonably called “be[ing] a… asshole.” I think it’s worse to mislead people.
> not understanding the consequences of the jurisdiction
It was your third chance to name which particular laws and jurisdictions you allude to. And it was the third time you didn't take it. So, I presume, you have no idea what you're talking about.
> I think it’s worse to mislead people.
That's exactly what you're doing.
Also recall, the jurisdiction you’re demanding was mentioned in my very first response to you: Europe.
What exactly is it that you’re trying to argue at this point?
Yes, you could. No, you didn't.
> Also recall, the jurisdiction you’re demanding was mentioned in my very first response to you: Europe.
This is what you said: " I guard against presumption: so I don’t make references to forms of European legislation"
So no, you didn't make references to Europe, and you continued to vaguely describe some vague unknown jurisdictions.
> What exactly is it that you’re trying to argue at this point?
That's a question to you, really. I've said my piece here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31774633
You could, of course, respond by pointing out legal frameworks or laws where the discussed cookie banner is actually required. And yet, here we are, in a pointless thread where you've pointed out none.
The dark patterns / bad behaviour works. If someone doesn't use them they fade into obscurity and the message never gets heard.
Here: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/
Direct image links: https://i.imgur.com/1UwHC59.png and https://i.imgur.com/mIRmN7Q.png
1) The amount of trackers is 4-5 times lower
2) The cookie banner is best-in-class: A directly visible "reject all" button
3) The modal, I half-way agree here, but at least appears only on first visit
It is a commercial site, after all. I couldn't see any paywalled articles, but if you try to browse the archive by tags, it'll tell you to subscribe first.
For a price of 1.60 per month, which is what I personally consider reasonable and sort of ten times lower than what news sites usually want you to pay.