under what circumstances as user would I want to explicitly agree to have my browsing history sent to tens or hundreds of third party tracking aggregators?

▲

scbrg 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've seen people argue, with a straight face, that they prefer to get ads that are "relevant to them". Including here on Hacker News.

▲

jsrozner 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"I like being manipulated by people who want to extract maximal value from me"

	▲	lucianbr an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Gee I wonder if anyone on HN might have some ulterior reason to write such a statement, without it being true.

▲

tysilva 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't disagree. The ideal state here is really layers of customation for the defaults. Options like reject all, or strictly necessary would be at the forefront. And then it's really up to the individual how they want to proceed when those options are not available.

▲

broken-kebab 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If offered something in return, I guess

▲

alt227 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ask that question to the 99% of people who click 'Allow All' on cookie banners.

	▲	fmbb 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Its the biggest button. They did not read the text to agree. It was the fastest way to get the banner to go away. Sometimes they force you to confirm multiple times if you click ”none” or ”minimal”.

▲

PaulRobinson 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Devil's advocate argument: if they were giving you something in return, and that could be cash, but it might also be "you can have this content for free".

In the UK a few news sites have changed cookie banners to "you can accept and see this stuff for free, or you can sign up for a subscription, which would you prefer?". It's the only time I hit accept (and then clear browser history).

If blanket preferences from browser signals became the norm, a segment might open up where you would configure preferences and a data broker would make sure you get something in return for your data. At minimum it might force paywalled publishers to consider that as a "lite" subscription option.

▲

inigyou 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's been ruled illegal in the EU, but EU sites still do it. Basically, the consent exception only applies if the user isn't coerced into it. Because coerced consent isn't consent.

▲

troupo 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> but it might also be "you can have this content for free".

ads don't require invasve and pervasive tracking

▲

jamiequint 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Effective ads absolutely require knowing more about the user than the context on the page it's a 1-2 orders of magnitude revenue difference for the publisher per-impression.

▲

alt227 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You seem to have missed the point. No ads dont require those things, but companies could start offering content in return for those things instead of ads.

	▲	Alpha3031 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		As I understand it, it is the position of several DPAs that denial of access entirely (i.e. "consent or pay") could contravene the "freely given" requirement of GDPR in most cases, though this has thus far not been tested in court. (see e.g. https://iapp.org/news/a/cjeu-clarifies-cookie-consent-requir... https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/edpb-consent-or-pay-models-s... )
	▲	troupo 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> but companies could start offering content in return for those things instead of ads. Again, that is not a requirement. If your argument is that they give us content for free because of ads, ads don't require pervasive and invasive tracking. Or hiding stuff behind paywalls (since ads pay for it).

▲

inigyou 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sometimes I do it to reward the website for being less shit than most websites.