7 pointsby sebastian_z8 hours ago2 comments
  • duxup8 hours ago
    I hate cookie banners.

    The idea that these problems should be solved in a way that means I have to have a legal agreement with every webpage just for viewing is absurd.

    I don't make legal agreements when I walk into a shop, it makes even less sense on the web.

    The cookie banner situation is an administrative solution that sounds nice in legal terms, but where the practical impact I suspect for most folks is they don't get more privacy / more ability to assert their rights ... they are just annoyed and click around to make the thing go away.

    • zb38 hours ago
      > they are just annoyed and click around to make the thing go away.

      That's precisely why we need the "Reject all" button.

      • RetroTechie7 hours ago
        True in the current context.

        But this really should have been a web standard, loooong ago. User sets a couple of settings once, browser & webserver send a few packets back & forth, done. No need for users in that loop on every single website (not to mention traffic for downloading scripts to show dialog boxes, list of vendors or whatever).

        The whole cookie thing (as we have it now) is one big waste of resources & user's time.

        • LocalH7 hours ago
          Isn't that essentially what "Do Not Track" was? Then Microsoft defaulted that setting to "on", which advertisers summarily used as an excuse to just ignore the whole thing.
  • 8 hours ago
    undefined