Comment by necovek
1 month ago
Nope, collective indifference to subpar user experiences has gotten us those lousy cookie banners.
Web sites could legally use cookies for non-tracking purposes without cookie banners but considering people have not stopped visiting sites despite the fugly click-through cookie banners makes them a failure.
All it takes is for 50% of the internet users to stop visiting web sites with them, and web site authors will stop tracking users with external cookies.
"All it takes is for 50% of the internet users to stop visiting web sites with them..."
You've written that like it's a plausible and likely scenario.
I think it's very unlikely. "All it takes" was tongue in cheek.
(If it was likely, it would have already happened)
Apologies, I read your comment like you'd written it, not like you've retro-actively decided you'd written it.
2 replies →
Yeah, this is an insane proposal. I know GP may be imagining a smart populace walking away from Big Evil Facebook and X with heads held high, but the other 99% of sites are also doing the same cookie banner stupidity because it is roughly mandatory due to useless EU law (unless you’re not engaging at all in advertising even as an advertiser). So, no more accessing your bank, power utility, doctor, college, etc. That’ll show those pesky cookie banner people!
“The Internet” to someone boycotting cookie banners would basically just be a few self-hosted blogs.
You do not need to show a banner and ask for consent if every cookie is to make the website work (e.g. for authentication and settings). GDPR didn't create this banner; websites that use useless cookies and phone home to Big Tech are.
2 replies →
I am happy to learn what I may have been imagining: thanks for that!
The law has turned out to be useless, agreed — or at least, it has driven hard-to-navigate UX that we live through today. The intent could have taken us in a different direction with some care (i.e. mandating a clear, no-dark-pattern opt-out/opt-in ahead-of-time option a la DoNotTrack header that similarly failed): if web clients (browsers) were required to pass visitor's preferences and if the list of shared-with was mandated to be machine readable with an exact format (so browsers would create nice UIs), maybe we'd get somewhere.
2 replies →
I read an article that said something along the lines of people aren't prepared to pay for apps, so instead we get app store silo advert supported crap-ware. And if it's not the apps its click bait making fractional gains by being supported by ad networks. That some of, but not all of us recoil from.
I think it's significantly less than 50% -- Your comment made me think of The dictatorship of the small minority[0], which places the value at 3~4%
[0]: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
> All it takes is for 50% of the internet users to stop visiting web sites with them, and web site authors will stop tracking users with external cookies.
How would the content creators or news sites earn then? Web is built on ads, and ads are built on tracking as untargeted ads pays significantly lower than targeted.
>How would the content creators or news sites earn then?
“Creators” seem to do just fine with the patronage model.
> ads are built on tracking as untargeted ads pays [sic] significantly lower than targeted.
Not my problem. I am not required to prop up your failed business model.
My opinion is, of course, in the minority. I understand that Google will do their best to keep the status quo in the advertising industry.
[dead]