Comment by lofaszvanitt | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lofaszvanitt | Hacker News Reader

Instead of blocking... what about certain cookies that you can set as persistent inside a browser. So a persistent cookie will ask permission to store your given preference forever. So next time you face the same question, it just queries the persistent cookie cache, checks whether you gave your permission to store those fucking consent cookies for ad tracking and bugger off.

Those fucking cookie banners... if you search for something, each and every fuckin page asks whether they want to track you. And since the banners are not standardized everyone tries to fuck the user in the arse big time by changing button locations, hiding options, and wording it in a perverse way. So in essence people will go mad after the 3rd time and just press the shinyest button to escape the torture. It just doesn't work and makes your life miserable.

So what about ff, chrome, edge, brave plus the chipmunks sit together, hold hands and come up with a standard for it? You can even give a 3 letter acronym to it, so when people regurgitate it, they can go through an orgasm every time...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... implement cookie banner blocking. Fuck man, whats next?

It would probably go exactly the same as Do not Track headers did: as soon as something allows users to automatically opt-out, web industry decides thats not tolerable and ignores it. Annoying you into clicking the wrong thing is the point of how websites implement it!

Do you realize that the whole thing is counterproductive, right? 99% of users do not want to know what the fuck a cookie is. Imagine you are right before coitus and in the beginning a little angel would pop up and warn you about STDs. And you must answer with an erect dick that yes, you understand. People want instant gratification. The information RIGHT NOW, the pornstar RIGHT NOW, the best pet food RIGHT NOW. PPl are already hooked on the internet, so why are you trying to tell nose jobs how to behave and endure this fucking practice?

It is not the users' job to know about whether the privacy aspects are shit and he/she is robbed of it. So the browser makers go on and solve this shitstorm together.

You've hit the meat of the issue. The legal process that got us to cookie banners was one of the most fascinating collisions of well-meaning but clueless privacy advocates, well-meaning but clueless politicians, and not-particularly-well-meaning-but-very-savvy-about-human-behavior web devs of the 21st century.

It was a trainwreck those who knew psychology saw coming from a mile away, watched get worse as the process progressed, and nobody wanted to hear their truth: this wasn't going to work because users don't care enough to disincentivize sites from tracking them.

Yeah. You have to educate people. And no one wants to educate people. The ruling caste wants to steer people in certain directions, but not towards truth and efficient systems.

So what's your proposal that makes websites comply with the browser makers "solution", and doesn't fail as described?

It is in my first comment. People don't care about cookies. Browser is a common good, and an interface to the hive mind that must be developed by independent entitites, so GOOG must be robbed of their browser. Sorry, that's the way to go. Google is effectively policing the internet, time to wrestle that right away.

How does your first comment address "how to make websites comply with it"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com