Hacker News Reader

Comment by somewhatgoated | Hacker News Reader

If by we you mean the US this would require a dramatic change in the culture. Just look how USAmericans view the regulations and rules that are imposed on businesses in the EU - what you propose would require a much harsher regulation than in the EU currently and even the current regulations seem extreme to Americans and proposing regulations like that would probably be political suicide

View on HN

You mean that because people take issue with the fact that the EU implements everything in almost the worst and most intrusive way possible? Sorry, you forgot to accept my view conversation cookie and I don’t want to be personally liable because you didn’t, so this response will be cut off in order to

I think this proves my point. The kind of regulations that GP proposed are just not realistic in US culture unless something changes dramatically.

I agree that cookie banners shouldn’t exist - but too many companies love to collect and sell my personal data so that is their current workaround. I would love for the EU regulation to clamp down on this as well but it’s a never ending process.

The banners were NEVER required.

The banners were devised by the adtech conoanies as a way they though could bypass the GDPR, in the most anti-user way possible. But "allow all" was easy.

Its also likely those banners arent even legal to begin with.

This whole cookie banner law is an example of horrible co panies will act in order to subvert the letter and spirit of laws.

Case in point. Americans can’t even get over a cookie popup. Can you imagine what we’d do if regulations led to stained carpets?

Clearly. It is definitely just about a pop-up and not anything else that was alluded to! How astute! You’re from the EU though I suspect that you’ve never even read that law in detail.

When complaining about poor regulations you chose a cookie popup as an example. You couldn’t think of anything less trivial? If that’s what your mind reaches for when you think of “poor regulations” you’ll have to forgive me for assuming you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion.

Your substance has been “I don’t know what I’m talking about, so you must not know what you are”. Impressive. I’d suggest reading more and assuming less.

Those cookie banners aren't required for conversations -- a persistent session cookie would be enough (if you don't want to make the user sign in every time). The cookie banner implementation is a burden companies choose to place on themselves (and then to burden their users).

I both agree and disagree, but the banner itself is, and isn’t really the point.

I think it's a chicken and egg problem around politics not necessarily a "cultural issue", which rings like victim blaming, it's politically suicidal only because the way that lobbying works and how we structure campaign financing. We only really have pro-business-does-no-wrong+blue bits or business-does-no-wrong+red bits, we don't have any effective other voices.

Again, harsher regulation is only "harsher" if it's purely reductive or increases the burden right. Indoor synthetic fiber carpets might not be the best example here, but something like health insurance is more easy to grok.

For the sake of the article though I'll try with carpets. If we issued regulations that said "no more companies making indoor carpeting that pollutes our environments and poisoned people" then used those resources elsewhere like encouraging sheep farming and carpet making, you would be to mitigate the pollution while not depriving people of their floor coverings.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com