How do you deal with endless cookies dialogues?
How do you deal with endless cookies dialogues?
This might be just EU thing, but is there an effective way to deal with endless "accept/reject cookies" dialogues?
Regardless of the politics behind, I think we can all agree that current state of practice around these dialogues is ...just awful.
Basically every site seems to use some sort of common middleware to create the actual dialogue and it's rare case when they are actually useful and user friendly --- or at least not trying to "get you". At least for me, this leads to being more likely to look for "reject all" or even leave, even if my actual general preference is not that. I've just seen too many of them where clicking anything but "accept all" will lead to some sort of visual punishment.
Moreover, the fact that the dialogues are often once per domain, and by definition per-device and per-browser, they are just .. darn ... everywhere, all the frickin' time.
Question: What strategy have you developed over time to deal with these annoying flies? Just "accept all" muscle memory? Plugins? Using just one site (lemmy.world, obviously) and nothing else? Something better?
Bonus, question (technical take): is there a perspective that this could be dealt on browser technical level? To me it smells like the kind of problem that could be solved in a similar way like language -- ie. via HTTP headers that come from browser preferences.
You're viewing a single thread.
Couldn't agree more. I absolutely hate the half-assed job the EU did on this. Who the hell thought we'd want to get harassed on every site we visit?
The EU did its job correctly by forcing sites to ask for consent. How that rule is implemented is up to the sites, and they often choose to do it in the most annoying possible way. And then tell you to blame the EU for it.
Also as a website owner, you only need to ask for consent when you use more than "strictly necessary" cookies (https://gdpr.eu/cookies/), i.e. cookies that are needed for your site to function normally.
The ruling has been updated to say that accepting cannot be more convenient/streamlined/less clicks than rejecting, though.
Getting that enforced is another matter altogether, however.
I just learned about the Do Not Track standard, which seems like a much better solution. Just tell your browser once that you don’t want to be tracked, and websites are required to respect that. Rather than each website implementing its own banner UI.
Unfortunately even when it's built into your browser, some sites get around it. It's definitely a much better idea than the half-assed mess though.
I blame the EU for not forcing implementation of Do Not Track standards. I will forever maintain that scraping of personal data of any kind should be opt-in, not opt-out. These people get paid a lot of money to get this right.
It is opt-in though? The site can't track you until you agree with its cookies policy
My take: there's many more user preferences (and always have been), that have effect on accessibility, usability and privacy. Cookie usage is just one of them, others are language, geolocation, dark/light theming, etc.
Judging from user perspective, level of implementation of these preferences has historically been a holy mess. For example, for one of the oldest preferences, Language, sites would commonly just take them as nice-to-have, if not ignore it completely. Geolocation is a different story, it looks like the way things are set up, site just has to ask your browser for help so it's harder to ignore it. Dark/light theming---I don't actually know where we are but is seems it's slowly getting better.
Technically, I don't see why data usage consent (cookies or not) could not be just another item in this list---in theory there must be better ways to deal with it than adding HTML dialogs.
I don't know if there's some standardization process going on somewhere, but it looks like we need it. These things take massive amount of collaboration, which just won't happen until the Mozilla's and Google's of the world are "forced" to.
So I appreciate government bodies stepping into this in terms of simply mandating that (but not how) service providers must respect user preferences. Telling them how to do it on a technical level is another question and I can't imagine anyone, let alone average regulatory body do this right on the first attempt.
I appreciate governments stepping in when it's clearly needed but these people get paid a lot of money to get this stuff right. I see no good reason they couldn't have implemented Do Not Track as the standard. Invasion of privacy should be opt-in, never opt-out, let alone some tedious task where you have to manually tick every box along the way.
Most browsers have some amount of settings for forcing sites to request permissions like geolocation anyway so there's little reason to have a borderline EULA to go through before someone can access a website. As for dark/light mode, the implementation on the web of dark modes is so all over the place that I - like many others - just use an extension to force it. It's not native, it's not perfect but it's better than nothing and better than some official attempts.
Who the hell thought we’d want to get harassed on every site we visit?
The sites' operators.
The GDPR does not mandate cookie banners. The GDPR mandates informed consent to processing of your data beyond what is technically necessary to facilitate the service. If all you're doing is store session ids, user preferences or whatever, you need no cookie banner whatsoever.
Lemmy also uses cookies. Do you see a banner? Me neither.Menial banners to "convince"/trick users into accepting severe privacy intrusions (cookies are the least of your concerns here) are an invention of the websites. Most of them aren't even legal as they often do opt-out (straight up against what is written in the law) or use dark patterns to trick users into giving consent (obviously not actual consent).
It's taking a while but the law is slowly being enforced now. Expect slightly less terrible cookie banners in the future. Whenever you do see one though, blame the site operators and law enforcement, not the GDPR.
I don't get why this is even needed. AFAIK the user can set sites that are not allowed to set cookies in the browser settings in chrome and Firefox at least. In theory this should work even better and more reliable than those damn popups.
They can but that doesn’t get rid of the banners, or worse the plague that is screen overlays.
I was talking about the way the law was made. Why does it require every site to implement a function that the browser already has and does better. They could have made it a requirement for browsers to inform the user about his possibility to block cookies from certain domains on the first launch, just like they made Microsoft to inform about other available browsers after the first startup of Windows XP (I think it was XP...).
But there is something even better coming I heard - there will be the possibility to have a 'trusted external service' handle the cookie opt-in-and-out for the users. WHY?! It looks like these laws are made by people without any kind of understanding how any of this even works...