Hacker News Reader

Comment by osigurdson | Hacker News Reader

GDPR: All websites ask if cookies are ok. If not ok, can't use website. Everyone clicks ok. Amazing work, regulators.

I always choose the “essential cookies only” option. This is normally harder than accepting all cookies, but it is getting easier over time. I rarely see a site that has essential-only.

> I rarely see a site that has essential-only.

You'd need no cookie banner, then. :-)

GDPR is not the ePrivacy directive.

The later is the one that resulted in the cookie banners, the former protects the right of Europeans to have their private data remain so.

Even with ePrivacy Directive you don't need the dark pattern banners the industry puts up

Correct. The banners started as malicious compliance and then became the "industry norm" so everyone followed through.

What's even more annoying is there were already browser plug-ins, and now there are built-in browser tools, for rejecting cookies or deciding which cookies to store permanently versus which to accept temporarily. GDPR forced a one-size-fits-all solution to a "problem" that was already solved, and got people used to a hostile UI pattern on websites.

> GDPR forced a one-size-fits-all solution

Can you point me to the exact place in GDPR that talks about browsers and cookies

> to a "problem" that was already solved

If it was already solved, why did the industry come up with the dark patterns to trick people into blindly agreeing to tracking and blaming the law for that?

Not everyone clicks ok. Having a choice is better.

You always have the choice not to use the internet. A far better solution would be to manage this on the client side.

I always click no and the websites do work. What do you mean?

> If not ok, can't use website.

If you care to read it, you'll find out this is the opposite of what it says.

Everyone doesnt click ok. You can typically use websites if you dont click ok.

I wonder how many websites show a cookie banner and don't change a thing whether you click Accept or anything else.

The last study I saw was about 15% for ways detectable client side (e.g. loading ad tracking scripts before the banner is interacted with or despite negative interaction).

Probably a bit higher when you consider server side tracking and those who make up some not-legally-valid claims of legitimate interests.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com