What does it say about the relationship between businesses and consumers that the first response to this bad behavior is to shout "look what you made them do!"
Seemingly it is everyone's fault except the bad actors themselves.
I've seen this attitude from tech people, too, so it's not just a matter of tech ignorance or illiteracy.
It’s an inconvenience to people who care about privacy and use browser configurations that don’t store state between visits.
So now in an attempt to protect regular users, the law ended up hurting users that already cared.
Additionally, the shadiest and incompetent sites still just track people with no cookie banner. So the law doesn’t really provide protection against uncooperative parties, whereas privacy technology does.
Fair point about the banners mostly "hurting" users who care about privacy (but, really though- how much does it really "hurt" you? I'm "hurt" more by the fact that I have to fold laundry several days a week).
But, I take major issue with you saying that the LAW ended up hurting users. Companies are under no legal obligation to make those banners as obnoxious as they are or with so many dark patterns (I sometimes don't know if I'm even enabling or disabling tracking with the way they word it). That's squarely on the web site owners pulling that nonsense.
> Additionally, the shadiest and incompetent sites still just track people with no cookie banner. So the law doesn’t really provide protection against uncooperative parties, whereas privacy technology does.
I agree that the only/best way to protect yourself is via technology and not by relying on people obeying the law.
However, if this is also an argument against having the law, it's an incredibly weak one. You can apply that logic to argue that NO laws are effective. People still murder even though it's illegal- must be a bad law, no?
Actually every single lawyer we asked about implementing GDPR advised us to have one of those obnoxious banners. Because the law is so ambiguous and the penalties so high that is better to play it safe. And we have no ads nor tracking at all on our product website.
You can ignore your lawyer's advice if you want, but it's a bit like a lawyer office ignoring my data security and backup advice: assuming a huge amount of risk.
Frankly, I doubt the veracity of this anecdote. But even so, I'm willing to bet that the lawyers in this story did not tell you that the banners have to cover half the screen and have ambiguous wording to intentionally confuse visitors to your site. When I say "obnoxious banner" I'm not being redundant: not all banners or popovers are "obnoxious".
Or are you in the peanut gallery willing to believe that there is some conspiracy where all websites have suddenly decided to obliterate their user's UX when GDPR appeared just because they are evil?
I live in the EU and I can tell you: ALL banners/popups are obnoxious. They ALL get in my way when I want to do something entirely different. As a (non ad/user-tracking) business I would never afflict them on my users if I had a choice.
The productivity loss here in EU since the GDPR would be staggering - if there was much productivity to begin with, of course.
Some of these bad actors actors with annoying cookie banners:
this is not true. It's just that most people are powerless to fight against the dark pattern onslaught.
The proper way to have done this would have been to go to the W3C or WHATWG and proposed an extension to HTML for sites to define an opt-in manifest or something similar.
So now we have this situation where providers were trained to play the GDPR in such a way that they will never have a problem, no matter what they actually do with the data.
And consumers are pissed because they are made to sign things which essentially reduce their rights...
And if someone (like me) thinks the EU did a half-assed job there, the downvotes rain in.
But not as much as you might think. Consent under GDPR only applies to what you were informed of when you consented, and you're allowed to revoke consent (with prospective effect) at any time.
I call upon all German users of this website to write to their MPs! Obviously the German civil service is a bad actor! The German deep state is plotting to discredit our beloved eurocrats and must be shut down! Den Sumpf trockenlegen!
I understand the joke you're trying to make but you clearly don't understand the relation between germans and privacy/tracking regulation to think this makes sense.
And I only picked Germany, because it's one of the few EU countries where stuff like that is rigorously enforced. In the rest of the EU, everything unrelated to the common market and/or getting money from the EU is at best haphazardly enforced.
If you want to, check out france.fr, a website maintained by an agency of the French tourism ministry. (After disabling the 3 dozens of annoyance blocking extensions everyone must use nowadays, of course.) What do you see?
A giant cookie overlay. Égoutter le marais!
No such thing anymore, unfortunately.
So yes, I do blame the government as I would be fine returning to the prior state.
Absolute dreams.
The biggest problem with online advertising is not tracking users. It's a lack of trust between advertisers and pretty much everyone else. If you're going to pay for an ad, you want to be sure it was seen by a real person. I'm not sure that's the concern any more because click-through is more important than "seeing" an ad. Regardless, the goals are to make sure it's easy for a given advertiser to get on many web sites, easy for a site to get ads, and also possible to prevent fraud since there will obviously be multiple parties involved.
I suspect tracking users was an offshoot of just verifying that users were real to prevent fraud in the ad world. Not saying any of it is OK, but it seems like the way to prevent tracking is to find a way to verify authenticity while also preserving privacy.
And that would be fine, as long as Swift was willing to pay for it. But the tracking and personalized ads thing was a numbers game; personalized ads have a higher conversion rate, thus are more valuable, thus we need data to personalize ads.
Why do I need to be "consuming corporate propaganda" when I just hate that I need to dismiss banners on every news website, when I didn't have to before the regulation?
I don't care about being tracked. But now that all websites need to cover their asses in response to regulation, I'm forced to figure out which button I need to click on to read content, and these websites don't even appear to save my preferences whether I agree to be tracked or not.
Objectively, the outcome of this regulation is that my experience is worse. Are the companies bad actors? Sure! Sounds like the EU should account for companies' bad behavior instead of forcing the internet to be more annoying.
It's important to note that we didn't have to go through the banners after the law, either. We only had to go through them after website operators intentionally picked the most disruptive and annoying popup to serve us. We can blame them. They chose to add it when they could have legally not added anything at all.
It's like the situation described here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39742766
> The experience you describe is the fault of websites which chose to make things that way.
I don't disagree. But they were less annoying before. So make them go back to being less annoying.
> make them go back to being less annoying
That is a request between you and them (the websites), unless you're talking about legislating a banner-less opt-out, or maybe just willing to file a complaint against the website with a data protection authority, if the banner is already illegally annoying.
Websites have the right to annoy their users with cookie popups, with or without the GDPR (ironically , the GDPR actually has some protections here, websites simply break the law). Unfortunately, it seems many are choosing to exercise that right because they make money doing so.
Your right, the experience got worse.
But the underlying point is there two ways this could have gone. The GDPR simply mandated that if companies track you they have to get your informed consent. So one way it could have gone is companies didn't track anonymous users.
Notice this doesn't apply to non-anonymous users. By definition once you've logged in you've revealed who are and agreed to a far more onerous privacy statement. So one way companies could comply is just to make you log in to see some content (and track you that way), and not bug you otherwise.
But they didn't go that way. They insist on tracking you regardless. Perhaps you don't agree, but I find this even more annoying because I install tracking blocking extensions and that breaks some sites. To me the world would have been a much better place if they had just gone along with the intent of the damned law and not tracked people who are try to remain anonymous.
To be fair it's not so bad. Firefox dismisses the cookie banners for you [0], and I have extensions that block the worst of their effects. If you are using a browser from an ad company and are complaining about cookie banners (which almost to the man use a deceptive UI to encourage you to accept them all so the ads work better), then I don't have a lot of sympathy. Me rejecting as many cookies as I can then blocking their trackers the worst possible outcome for the web sites trying to garner some ad revenue of course, but shrug, the industry could have acted in good faith, and didn't.
[0] https://community.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/firefox-cookie-ba...