Yep, it baffles me that a lot of people would rather not have the option to reject cookies. Its weird to say "I don't want to stop a website tracking me because the UX is terrible. I'd rather get tracked instead.". Of course, it would be better if the UX were even better, but I'd rather take something over nothing.

▲

9rx 5 days ago | parent [-]

> Yep, it baffles me that a lot of people would rather not have the option to reject cookies.

Back in the day browsers offered this natively. When the advertising companies started building browsers there was a lot of incentive to see that go by the wayside of course...

But the earlier comment isn't saying that you shouldn't have options, rather that the law needs to be more specific, such as requiring browsers to work in coordination with website operators to provide a unified solution that is agreeable to users instead of leaving it completely wide open to malicious compliance.

These kind of laws need to be careful to not stifle true innovation, so it is understandable why it wanted to remain wide open at the onset. But, now that we're in the thick of it, maybe there is a point where we can agree that popup dialogs that are purposefully designed to be annoying are in volition of the spirit and that the law should be amended to force a better solution?

▲

troupo 5 days ago | parent [-]

> that the law needs to be more specific, such as requiring browsers to work in coordination with website operators

1. The law isn't about browsers or websites. It equally applies to all tracking. E.g. in apps. Or in physical stores.

2. The world's largest advertising company could do all you describe. And they do work with websites. First by repackaging tracking through FLoC. Then by just simply repackaging tracking and calling it privacy: https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1664682689591377923

▲

9rx 4 days ago | parent [-]

> It equally applies to all tracking. E.g. in apps. Or in physical stores.

Obviously. And where there are problems in those domains equal specificity would be asked for. But since we're talking about in the context of browsers specifically...

▲

troupo 4 days ago | parent [-]

> But since we're talking about in the context of browsers specifically...

... then we all know it only cookies that matter? I don't understand the ellipsis

▲

9rx 4 days ago | parent [-]

Cookies don't matter. There are many different ways to track users without using cookies even when talking about browsers specifically. But what does matter was already discussed. Are you reading comments in complete isolation again or what? There is a context that has been built up.

▲

troupo 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Cookies don't matter. There are many different ways to track users without using cookies

Oh look. Here's what I wrote:

--- start quote ---

The law isn't about browsers or websites. It equally applies to all tracking. E.g. in apps. Or in physical stores.

--- end quote ---

> But what does matter was already discussed. Are you reading comments in complete isolation again or what? There is a context that has been built up.

This is literally the only thread around your comment. There are dozens of other discussions, yes. I was specifically replying to your comment, and expecting replies within the context of your comment.

	▲	9rx 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		> The law isn't about browsers or websites. A historical law that hasn't had anything to do with the discussion since conception isn't about browsers, but the discussion about how future laws might improve upon 'malicious' use of browsers is. Said 'malicious' use of browser isn't about cookies, though, so such a new law would not be written about cookies anyway, so where do you think cookies even fit? > I was specifically replying to your comment You replied to it in a mechanical sense. But you did not reply to the content of it. And now are apparently doubling down on that even after it was brought to your attention...