Cookie banners is malicious compliance. The ultimate goal being for you yo think it was bad legislation instead of how every company is fucking you for your privacy.

They’re winning.

▲

loup-vaillant 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not sure they're complying even with the letter of the law. Many cookie banners I see, require several clicks to deny anything but those they don't have to ask me about. And in most other cases, the accept button is significantly more visible than the deny one.

If that's actually allowed, yeah, bad law. If it's not… well I guess we can hope prosecutors will prosecute. Though I'm afraid we won't get much more than hope…

▲

lotu 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'd say it was bad legislation because this was a foreseeable outcome. I actually worked on cookie banners, and we did user testing, a full 80% of people closed it before reading single word and thought it was an ad.

This type of ambush agree to XYZ or you can't come in that we see with EULA's and privacy polices is unfair, just like if some scammer demanded people sign a fifty page contract before they enter the supermarket. This is something people understand intuitively.

It was foreseeable, and the end result is very little has changed as far as consumer privacy. Most people just agree to get the box to go away, if you actually want privacy your best bet is still a private browsing session and a VPN.

	▲	tjoff 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Here is an idea, don't abuse your users and you don't even have to show a cookie banner. Of course people treat it like spam - because that is exactly what it is. A giant fuck you to every single user.

▲

monocularvision an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why does the EU Commission site have cookie banners then?

https://commission.europa.eu

Malicious compliance?

	▲	dijit an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

runeks 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It was bad legislation because it didn't achieve anything except make visiting websites more annoying.

I don't care what the politicians intended. The outcome is no improvement in privacy but more annoying banners.

▲

anonymars 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The cookie banners typically have an opt out. How is that not a privacy improvement?

	▲	gib444 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What do you think most users click? The quickest and easiest option ("agree"/ "that's fine”) to get on with their day. That then makes consent explicit which is worse than the previous gray area

▲

dijit 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The same way that the legislation that abolished slavery was bad because it didn’t account for the prison systems leasing out unpaid workers leading to even worse conditions for black folk in the US?

People talk as if the EU should have done nothing, or that the rule should be repealed, the GDPR forced people to have a functioning deny all.

The real lesson here is that people would rather annoy their users for money than create good products. Its a case for regulation.