Hacker News Reader

Comment by chx | Hacker News Reader

They are the most adversarial implementation of the law. There is no requirement for them. The Do Not Track HTTP header would've been perfectly compliant but of course the ad companies -- and let's not forget Google is one -- did not want it. They want you to be pissed off by the cookie banners so eventually they might go away.

View on HN

I get pissed off at the website for asking to track me, not pissed off at the law that requires my consent to track me. I hope many people feel the same way I do.

Unfortunately not enough people care, or are even aware of what they don't care about, and that is a large part of what the dark patterns hope to take advantage of.

I'd accept a straight opt-in/opt-out choice if, as per the law, opting out was just as easy as opting in and opting in was not any sort of default. But the stalky side of the industry (most of it) doesn't want informed consent, they don't want to have to acknowledge the idea of consent at all.

I just remove cookie popups with ublock origin. Nobody annoyed me enough yet to see if they're compliant afterwards - pretty much all pages work properly after that, and they'd need to handle that case as selecting the refusal button.

That is expected to happen with every law.

To which, the solution would be to tell companies not to use intrusive banners, not allow tracking like it was before.

There were already updated requirements to avoid some dark patterns deployed in the wild, like mandating providing a "reject all" button.

Unfortunately, I still see tons of sites that don't provide one, or have opted-in-by-default settings for news, etc.

These definitely need to be enforced better.

Hopefully leeches like IAB who are behind many of these banners will get their dues: https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/digital-ad-ruling-cje...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com