Longer answer: people seem to forget that you don't need user consent to set basic cookies needed for the basic operation of a website, because you're providing a service the user has requested (ie., render the content on this website please). You only need a cookie pop-up thing if your default is to set unrelated / marketing cookies. If you don't do that, then you don't need a consent banner and you can have an opt in somewhere for people who want to be tracked for some fucking reason. That's why websites that aren't designed by utter bastards don't have those daft pop-ups even if you access them in europe.
In other words the burden should only be on people who make shit websites that gobble up data for marketing. But as the op said, because of malicious compliance by piece of shit companies and marketers, it's shifted to being the user's problem. The regulations should be tightened to prevent this kind of bullshit behavior imo, not relaxed or removed as you seem to be (?) implying.
@dumpsterqueer @hrbrmstr @borup i think the only valid criticism of GDPR is that it's not tight enough tbh. they could've mandated sites respect a
X-GDPR-Cookie-Consent: { reject-nonessential | ask | allow }
header in all HTTP requests, or at least mandate that the UI for the preference be provided by the browser and websites got to acquire the answer either as a header or thru a JS function
I don't get why they skipped something so obvious
@cadadr @dumpsterqueer @hrbrmstr @borup
I'm guessing that the bad actors forced a "compromise"
@untitaker @borup GDPR was created to collect fines.
The EU doesn't actually care about data privacy/human safety. Ref: ProtectEU
And, all cookie notices are annoying & fairly useless at this point.
@untitaker @borup I'll make sure to pass that on to the Council of Economic Advisers who I have talked policy with and a few other groups I do talk policy with.
Have fun living in your fantasy world, especially when ProtectEU goes into full swing.
@untitaker @hrbrmstr @borup
I have never seen one overly cautious cookie implementation. I have seen thousands that followed the Epstein model of consent.
First by simply stating that they were in violation, then claiming "you consent", then it was a question with accept as the only possible answer.
@hrbrmstr @borup They could put a link or button saying something like "Personalize my ads"somewhere that doesn't block your view of the page and doesn't force you to interact with it before reading the page you've already loaded, and default to just the narrowly-allowed types of tracking (like remembering that you rejected the more invasive types).
It could be a sidebar, part of the header or footer, a banner in the middle of the article...
Heck, even one of those annoying scroll-down subscription prompts, or an interstitial when following links (as long as it remembered your decision) would be less annoying.
There are lots of options less malicious than what the industry decided to go with, because they picked something that effectively turns what should be an opt-in choice into an opt-out one.
Borup
hrbrmstr 🇺🇦 🇬🇱 🇨🇦
tobi is writing bugs 
charlag
ipod squirrel 🎧🐿️
Three plus or minus five
Markus Unterwaditzer
Walter van Holst
Leeloo
Kelson
Von Xylofon