@ocornut EU cookie law is not the problem. You don't need to ask for consent for essential cookies, like the ones that store your login session ID or the shopping cart in a web store.
Every time you see the cookie popup, it's about selling your browsing data to third parties.
We see these popups everywhere and the reasoning is "the EU did something stupid", but it's the opposite. They caught the thieves red-handed.
"We value your privacy." Yeah, no shit. By putting a monetary value on it.
personally use this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/consent-o-matic/
automatically seeks out and clicks the Reject button for you
@erisceleste @Migueldeicaza @susipsych
Note that there are plugins for chromium and Safari browsers as well: https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic
@erisceleste @Migueldeicaza Well Miss, you should be getting the toot of the month award.
This extension solves a major annoyance with a bunch of bad actors: only "accept" upfront and forcing you to open a menu to put all buttons on reject.
Thank you!!
*edit=typos
@reedmideke The only reason analytics needs cookies is for tracking visitor profiles across visits. Visitor profiling is creepy af regardless of the motives behind it, and the reason for why even respectable orgs are doing it is because it was normalized.
The ESA should disable that tracking cookie (and related fingerprinting) in their Matomo setup, as they don't actually need it for anything.
@tesmaia There have been attempts to standardize on the Do Not Track flag, but that is voluntary on the server side, and we all know how well that works.
FWIW, Firefox by default now keeps cookie pools separate for each domain you visit.
@tesmaia Oh, but there is.
Or at least was.
Meet #DoNotTrack
Do Not Track (DNT) is a formerly official HTTP header field, designed to allow internet users to opt-out of tracking by websites—which includes the collection of data regarding a user's activity across multiple distinct contexts, and the retention, use, or sharing of data derived from that activity outside the context in which it occurred.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track
Industry refused to adopt it and the standard was withdrawn in 2018. So we get !@#$%^&*() consent dialogues.
My own response to those:
Note that this is usually overkill as uMatrix typically denies third-party cookies anyway. But it's my little personal protest.
(uBlock Origin, uMatrix, and Stylish are all browser extensions for #Firefox, Chrome, Safari, etc. Note that you want uBlock Origin and NOT the uBlock, which has gone to the dark side.
@dredmorbius DNT is stupid to begin with, you need to standardize the way consent is given, not standardize the opt-out, because then you already know it's going to be ignored.
If the only way to get consent, and therefore have the ability to place cookies, is through a fixed pathway, sites will implement the standard.
@samir @wolfpld @ocornut That's just outright false. You can reject them and everything works.
And "it's not selling your data, it's showing you ads" is the most bad-faith bullshit I could imagine some web bro pulling out of his ass. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME THING. SHOWING YOU ADS IS HOW THEY SELL YOUR DATA because the ad provider sees every navigation action you make on the site (and maybe a lot more than that).
First of all, the law requires denying consent to be as easy as accepting cookies. Sites could just default to no cookies, with a small cookie banner across the bottom of the site. They do the full page multiple choice pop-ups to annoy you on purpose and to turn people off from supporting GDPR. Fuck that.
@ablackpanther @wolfpld @ocornut
Sites cannot default to no cookies. They need to earn money somehow (ads)
How many newspapers do you subscribe to?
The law is actually very specific, and does require consent
@ablackpanther
I did not say "secure" and incognito alone is not enough, but it is a very important tool, and much better than not using it (because you want the website to remember your consent lol(
So you didn't answer the question, how many newspapers do you pay? Let me guess, zero
@samir So how much less money do they get from non-targeted ads? Maybe a few cents.
Asking about how much one person pays for website subscriptions is irrelevant to the discussion of the larger ecosystem.
@ablackpanther it's actually very relevant, I am very familiar with the space. A very small percentage of people pay because most think they are entitled to free services.
Most people don't understand that free means you pay with things other than money.
And non targeted ads are garbage, the brokers would stop sending you good ads because you don't convert.
People who came up with this stupid idea have no clue how it works or how to solve it.
@ablackpanther you are right about this.
But as you type, did you not realize that they didn't solve the root cause and just made things worse for us without solving anything?
They forced the website owners to show a false sense of privacy, and they didn't enforce the laws on those who don't care about laws (the ones who actually sell your data) and left the brokers do whatever they want (buy your data and sell it to others)
Politicians are good at pretending they are doing something
@samir They enforced this on the primary generators of this data. The point being that it shouldn't even be collected in the first place. Of course GDPR can be improved, but I imagine it would not have passed if it used even stronger language, because lobbyists. And the super annoying pop-ups are absolutely not the default requirement. It's just the terrible implementation using dark patterns.
And considering the stories you hear from the US about multiple spam calls a day, I'll take it.
They are spray calling numbers without knowing who you are, nothing to do with browsing
And again, those who sell your data are not impacted at all by this law, because they would not tell you what data they took from you in the first place
At the end of the day those who make an effort to give you content need to get paid, and I bet you that most of those who complain about ads here never donated to their instance admin, nor to the one who built the software!
@samir Same kind of privacy invading bullshit.
The law says the websites you interact with should not collect your data all before you even get to the "selling off to data brokers" part unless you opt in.
I agree that people need to get paid. They don't need to make a profit off other people's data ignoring any wider problems. Privacy nightmare and completely free are not the only two options!
@ablackpanther
again, you think the laws are protecting you, but they actually are not
It is doing the opposite of what you think they do.
If you scroll right back at the top of this thread, you will notice that I am advocating for Incognito browsing because the websites that sell your data don't even follow GDPR rules, and GDPR makes it a hell to use Incognito.
It sounds like this conversation has gotten off track.
And yes, go pay your Mastodon Admin, and donate to Mastodon org
@samir
Thought this article might help the discussion.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3313831.3376321
Also "choke point capitalism" by Rebecca Goblin and Cory Doctorow mention how GDPR helped big ad companies as they are the only ones able to comply.
Maybe forbidding tracking completely might have done the trick.
@troglodyt
no, it's not a great experience, only think great because you actually leak your data by not browsing incognito. Try using incognito and you will realize how terrible it is (you have to reject every time!)
Gives a sense of false security, because the majority doesn't even care about the law and they sell your data, so the bad guys are laughing . Absolutely the opposite of the intent of the law
not sure why you're lying about this
i use ephemeral cookie storage all the time and reject data collection all the time, it's great. it's also pretty rare that i have to snitch on corps due to illegal third party sharing
@troglodyt lol you either persist your consent ( aka have cookies enabled ) or you don't
Why do I need to lie? I am saying the laws are useless. The data brokers are happily selling your data and you don't even know it, because those who sell your data will not even ask for xoncent
But let's keep those heads in the sand
it's great that the exploitation is made explicit and rubbed in your face all the time
laws do work, stop lying
ah, you sell such exploitation to big corporations
that explains your weird fud:ing
kindly fuck off until you get a decent employment
@troglodyt
It sounds like rude people have moved from Twitter to here!
That's OK, I blocked people like you on Twitter, and I can do it here too
@HunterZ
There are many reasons, some are legitimate, some are not
1. The ads need to be diverse (i.e. not showing you the same ad over and over)
2. Ads that you disapprove should not be shown to you (when you say don't show me ads like this)
3. The ads need to be relevant, if you click on an ad for cars, it means ads for cars are relevant to you
Then there are targeting ads based on demographics/interests (this is usually an option by website owner)
Then there is ads relevancy, another option
@martin_piper @ocornut Directive 2009/136/EC
"Exceptions to the obligation to provide information and offer the right to refuse should be limited to those situations where the technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user."
@colognella @wolfpld @ocornut
The ICO guidance is fairly clear on this:
“It is important to remember that what is ‘strictly necessary’ should be assessed from the point of view of the user or subscriber, not your own. So, for example whilst you might regard advertising cookies as ‘strictly necessary’ because they bring in revenue that funds your service, they are not ‘strictly necessary’ from the user or subscriber’s perspective.”
I don’t think you could argue that matomo opt-out or blocking multiple survey submissions is strictly necessary from the users’ perspective. There are some examples in the guidance too.
Deimos
Bartosz Taudul
Miguel de Icaza ᯅ🍉
Alex Celeste, Princess Consort of Burnout
Jeffrey J. Dean
Z O R A N G R B I C
mayor of tr*nny town
Ben S.
Reed Mideke
Alex Nedelcu
Tesmaia
Jernej Simončič �
lonjil
Doc Edward Morbius ⭕
Omar
Toon Van de Putte 🍉
Oli
Samir Al-Battran
Cassandrich
CatsSimsBooks
ablackpanther
Andrés (personal views)
Tröglödÿt
Martin Piper (he/him) 💙💛🌻💉
colognella
Martin Ellis