| ▲ | blooalien 7 months ago |
| > ... "it basically added a cookie banner to every every website I visit" ... Yeah, no. Hostile advertising companies added that cookie banner as a form of "malicious compliance" with the law purely to annoy everyone like a buncha spoil't little brats who didn't get their way, so now they're gonna make everyone suffer... If we get a similar law in the USA, you can expect to see annoyances just like it (and probably worse) on sites hosted here, too. |
|
| ▲ | chrismorgan 7 months ago | parent | next [-] |
| The worst part is that it wasn’t even malicious compliance: the cookie banners they added seldom even satisfied law, in ways completely obvious if you just read the law (which is pretty easy reading, only a few thousand words for the relevant parts). I don’t understand why relevant commissions didn’t make more noise about that, because it was obvious that major players were deliberately poisoning public perception. |
|
| ▲ | shadowgovt 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That heavily incentivizes me to advocate against any such law. |
|
| ▲ | thfuran 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not if we ban third-party ads. |
|
| ▲ | brookst 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can you source your claim? Because it seems like it would create a competitive advantage for a non-hostile advertising company. Websites aren’t any happier about cookie banners than users are. If it’s just an emotional, spiteful reaction, the grownups should be able to make a fortune. |
| |
| ▲ | blooalien 7 months ago | parent [-] | | You'd think there'd be some "competitive advantage" to be had, but when their entire industry is built upon tracking and profiling everyone they possibly can, they'll do anything they can, fighting tooth-and-nail to the very end against any legislation that somehow interferes with their tracking, even if it means resorting to childish and petty temper tantrums that further enshittify the web. What little "competition" exists in that industry all fully believe that building massive profiles on everyone is the only way to make any money at advertising. They've been allowed to get away with it for so long that they can't even remember there was a time when tracking everyone all the time everywhere wasn't even a thing (and yet advertisers still managed to advertise back then, somehow)... | | |
| ▲ | wahnfrieden 7 months ago | parent [-] | | Other replier believes that competition is a system that works toward consumer needs and betterments. Advertising is extractive | | |
| ▲ | bombis 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | Competition _is_ a system that works toward consumer needs and betterments. In advertising though, you are not the consumer. | |
| ▲ | brookst 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Actually I thought I was clear in my framing that, if site owners are unhappy with cookie banners, it is unlikely that a conspiracy of ad networks would force them to accept the nuisance. The claim is that no sites value their user experience enough to pick an ad solution with a better experience. I doubt that claim. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | shadowgovt 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] |
| And if the regulators didn't predict such compliance they should be replaced with competent actors in their jobs. That was the obvious outcome. What did people predict: site owners leaving money on the table? Who pays for operating the sites then? |
| |
| ▲ | schmidtleonard 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | When GDPR was first going through the public circuit I remember reading the proposed laws and being pleasantly surprised to find that they specifically called out and forbade the likely workarounds, including the obnoxious banners we now see everywhere. I would love to know what happened. Did the laws get "revised" to re-open the loophole? Was superseding legislation passed? Did the courts reject it? Are there enforcement issues? | | |
| ▲ | roenxi 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | | That sounds like a legal minefield - I would point out that GDPR-style legislation exists because the legislators don't trust the industry to assess what is reasonable. So the industry would be in a position where: 1) They aren't trusted to be reasonable about user consent. 2) They are only to take action when they judge it is reasonable to check user consent. It'd probably be a very rocky process to nail down what those words like "loophole" and "workaround" mean as the advertisers start abusing prescribed no-banner situations. | |
| ▲ | p_l 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | TL;DR the enforcement simply lacks manpower, and the most egregious cases go to court which also takes time. |
| |
| ▲ | Aeolun 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | All the sites that need advertising like that can just die off and leave the internet a better place. | | |
|
