frankvdwaal

I for one am absolutely against features not existing for customers who want it just because the Apple deigns that they shouldn’t have it. I don't want Apple to take away my agency to make my own choices.

Good thing governments are on the side of the consumer at least, right?

It says cisgendered, not straight, though.

It does have a translation layer. Microsoft calls it Prism, which immediately made me think of the NSA's PRISM program, in which Microsoft was an enthusiastic collaborator. I guess this is a nice way to shadow search engine results for "Microsoft PRISM".

Man, there are a whole bunch of sites that cover the Netherlands, but they always seem to be out of date or dog slow to the point of timeouts and ad-laden.

This is fast and accurate - just type it in and boom. Why can't the web be more of this? Made for people, you know?

From the site:

"all elements on the frontier are not equally good."

Peach is just as good as Daisy, for example, so I'd say: "Not all elements of the frontier are equally good."

Well, note that I said it could just as well be a widget on the website somewhere.

There's no such thing as a mandatory cookie popup. You don't need to get explicit consent if your website needs certain cookies to do what the user wants it to do. Placing a session cookie to log in is fine, for example. And it's also fine to place tracking cookies if and only if the user goes to aforementioned widget and presses the "please track me" button.

But users don't want that, obviously, so websites are built to force you to acknowledge the choice. The problem here is not the implementation of the law - it's the attitude of the website builders.

This is a misconception that I've seen going around, and I still wonder where it came from.

The Dutch implementation is called "Uitvoeringswet Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming", which, as the title states, is the law that implements the GDPR. "AVG" is just a translation for "GDPR", not the name of the law that implements it.

The Uitvoeringswet describes how the GDPR functions within Dutch law, for example, it describes the role that the Dutch Data Protection Authority plays. You can read the Uitvoeringswet right here: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0040940/2021-07-01

The GDPR (in Dutch AVG, in French RGPD, in Spanish RGPD, etc.) actually DOES state that it should be just "as easy to withdraw as to give consent" in Article 7. The directive (2016/679) can be found here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679.

No, it's the builders of the consent notifications who are responsible for that. They are often skirting or even breaking EU law to make it a headache to refuse. The GDPR says, for example, that refusal should be just as easy as acceptance. Having to click to another screen to do that is... not that.

In reality a cookie consent notification can just as well be a small widget somewhere with an accept and refuse button, but it's the builders of these frameworks that have a vested interest in getting you to press accept.

I've applied for a job at one of these companies about a year ago, and I asked them about it. They said to me that according to their metrics, there's about 30% more acceptance if they only bury their Refuse button, so it's a legal risk they are willing to take.

Needless to say, when they invited me for a second conversation, I politely refused.

No, the shitty cookie screens with dark patterns is not the responsibility of the EU - although you could make the argument that the EU should have been stricter or more prescriptive.