Funny, I use the "I still don't care about cookies" extension (https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Still-Dont-Care-About-Cookies) right now to automatically accept the cookie banners. They're literally one of the most annoying things that has happened in the web's history
I always get downvoted for saying this but I think the cookie banners broke taboos about intrusive and annoying pop-ups in web sites. There was a time the tech and design oriented people could fight against it for the users but once it was required or maybe “socially positive” it got much harder to fight against all the others so you find the blogs now that will interrupt you three times to give your email and such.
Cookie banners were the “broken window” that led to the whole car being demolished.
We’ve had far more annoying pop ups and banners since the 90s. One of Opera’s primary selling points at one time was its popup blocking capabilities and that was in the 90s or latest in the 2001/2002 timeframe from what I can remember.
He's not saying that cookie banners were the first pop up. He's saying that you can delineate a before time and an after time that is delineated by the cookie banners. Before: pop ups were bad and browsers would advertise about how they defeated pop ups. After: pop ups are acceptable and you're bad if you want to defeat them.
I remember the popup (e.g. new browser window) crisis circa 2000. Those were easy to stop because the behavior is easy for a browser to identify so browsers can't open popups if the action wasn't initiated by a user event handler and can open only so many in that condition.
Banners, modal dialogs and other kinds of "new popups" in general are a bit tougher. Usually there is some element you could remove from the DOM tree or display: none but the trouble is knowing which element!
The annoying thing is: it is not required by GDPR.
You can provide whatever the user wants to do. Recommendations? Sure. If you want them. The required data collection is then just.... Required. It is tied to this purpose though and can't be used e.g. for ads.
But it is not OK to collect everything about the user so you can charge more for ads or to sell ("exchange") that information. Which is in 99% of cases the reason for these banners.
Same way Spotify does it on startup: ask about a few things.
IANAL, but worked through implementations that can work without banner consent.
I don't want to imply that it is easy or anything. It's pretty annoying, especially as the purpose of that data needs to be tightly tracked. But it is totally doable.
There's been an overall progression toward intrusiveness for as long as commerce has been on the internet. We had "sign up for our newsletter" and other pop-ups way before GDPR.
I think popup blockers turned back the tide for a while, but businesses eventually learned how to leverage dialogs for some of the same purposes. And, over time, that's been rolled up into WordPress plugins and other easy to implement solutions for one-off site owners, which makes them even more common.
I can also recommend getting Consent-o-matic[0]. It automatically completes consent forms on most sites and denies all by default, although this is configurable. It is developed and maintained by the University of Aarhus in Denmark and is my opinion a better alternative to I don't care about cookies and similar extensions. It is also open source!
It's funny we (EU, CCPA?) regulate cookies and hit use cases of companies trying to better themselves via analytics or maintain user presence, but we haven't done much in the way of stopping MAGMA from owning the means of communication and commerce outright.
The Apple/Google duopoly on smartphones is insane.
- Companies face 30% tax, can't deploy, can't do native (Apple) or get scare walls (Google), can't form a customer relationship, get ads sold against their brands, forced to use Apple/Google tech and adopt their upgrade cycles, no VMs/runtimes/plugins, etc.
- Customers also have it bad: they're faced with planned obsolescence, no upgrades, encrypted parts ecosystem, green text FOMO. Apple/Google are owning all of payments, navigation, date/sex life, work calendars, emails, etc. etc. And they're not collecting data on us throughout all these activities?
Or what about Google practically owning web discoverability by paying everyone off?
Why don't we regulate smartphone vendors? This seems fair:
- Web is first class. Users can download apps off of it without scare walls.
- Apps can have native code, WASM, self-update, pack runtimes, etc.
- Apps can use their own auth rails, payments rails, etc.
- No limit on the types of apps. You can deploy non-Safari browsers and app stores of your own.
- Search engine providers can't buy access to every single pane of glass.
I'd argue that we should also regulate them on the basis of the power of their defaults, but we're in such a bind that I'd be fine with just the above.
The EU is either cracking down on or actively investigating how to crack down on all of the things you mentioned. Cookies were just their warm-up phase.
Actually, I'm sugarcoating things! The EU was cracking down on Android years before even the cookies. US techies genuinely thought EU antitrust was a shakedown to get money out of Google and have conveniently forgotten things since.
Well, the Digital Markets Act basically regulates the things you're asking for. It's specifically designed to tackle "gatekeepers", such as the Google/Apply duopoly on smartphones, Metas hold on chat (especially in Europe, where WhatsApp is very popular), Amazons hold on the online marketplace, etc.
It's a very new regulation, so we've yet to really see the effects.
I've used this extension for a long time, but there are actually websites like CNN that don't work with it now, because according to their lawyers they have to show that banner to everyone from the EU.
Do you have JavaScript enabled on that domain (CNN)? I use the NoScript extension as well as I Still Don't Care About Cookies, most JavaScripts are disabled (besides cnn.com and cnn.io), and I can read the articles just fine.
There was a period back in December that this happened to me. I use a combination of ublock origin, no script, privacy badger, and Ghostery — along with PiHole and NextDNS.
Yes, I know that’s probably a recipe for conflicting disaster, but like a lot of these temporary breakages, after about a week the problems with CNN disappeared. And I don’t think I did anything. But, I am US based too.
Comments
Funny, I use the "I still don't care about cookies" extension (https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Still-Dont-Care-About-Cookies) right now to automatically accept the cookie banners. They're literally one of the most annoying things that has happened in the web's history
I always get downvoted for saying this but I think the cookie banners broke taboos about intrusive and annoying pop-ups in web sites. There was a time the tech and design oriented people could fight against it for the users but once it was required or maybe “socially positive” it got much harder to fight against all the others so you find the blogs now that will interrupt you three times to give your email and such.
Cookie banners were the “broken window” that led to the whole car being demolished.
We’ve had far more annoying pop ups and banners since the 90s. One of Opera’s primary selling points at one time was its popup blocking capabilities and that was in the 90s or latest in the 2001/2002 timeframe from what I can remember.
He's not saying that cookie banners were the first pop up. He's saying that you can delineate a before time and an after time that is delineated by the cookie banners. Before: pop ups were bad and browsers would advertise about how they defeated pop ups. After: pop ups are acceptable and you're bad if you want to defeat them.
I remember the popup (e.g. new browser window) crisis circa 2000. Those were easy to stop because the behavior is easy for a browser to identify so browsers can't open popups if the action wasn't initiated by a user event handler and can open only so many in that condition.
Banners, modal dialogs and other kinds of "new popups" in general are a bit tougher. Usually there is some element you could remove from the DOM tree or display: none but the trouble is knowing which element!
The annoying thing is: it is not required by GDPR.
You can provide whatever the user wants to do. Recommendations? Sure. If you want them. The required data collection is then just.... Required. It is tied to this purpose though and can't be used e.g. for ads.
But it is not OK to collect everything about the user so you can charge more for ads or to sell ("exchange") that information. Which is in 99% of cases the reason for these banners.
How are you able to recommend content to a user without having previously asked for consent?
Either you have no data and so no information to tune your recommendations or you have data in which case you needed to request for consent
Or you can recommend content related to what's on the page. Same way TV & other traditional ads tend to work, since they can't track users.
Same way Spotify does it on startup: ask about a few things.
IANAL, but worked through implementations that can work without banner consent.
I don't want to imply that it is easy or anything. It's pretty annoying, especially as the purpose of that data needs to be tightly tracked. But it is totally doable.
Why didn't they just ask some human factors people about it and come to some solution like: "if you don't respect Do Not Track you go to jail"?
There's been an overall progression toward intrusiveness for as long as commerce has been on the internet. We had "sign up for our newsletter" and other pop-ups way before GDPR.
I think popup blockers turned back the tide for a while, but businesses eventually learned how to leverage dialogs for some of the same purposes. And, over time, that's been rolled up into WordPress plugins and other easy to implement solutions for one-off site owners, which makes them even more common.
Yeah. If there MUST be banners then, hey, why not cover half the #%^*ing screen with a “give us your email” banner.
Or give us feedback. When I'm on the site for the first time...
I can also recommend getting Consent-o-matic[0]. It automatically completes consent forms on most sites and denies all by default, although this is configurable. It is developed and maintained by the University of Aarhus in Denmark and is my opinion a better alternative to I don't care about cookies and similar extensions. It is also open source!
[0]: https://consentomatic.au.dk/
It's funny we (EU, CCPA?) regulate cookies and hit use cases of companies trying to better themselves via analytics or maintain user presence, but we haven't done much in the way of stopping MAGMA from owning the means of communication and commerce outright.
The Apple/Google duopoly on smartphones is insane.
- Companies face 30% tax, can't deploy, can't do native (Apple) or get scare walls (Google), can't form a customer relationship, get ads sold against their brands, forced to use Apple/Google tech and adopt their upgrade cycles, no VMs/runtimes/plugins, etc.
- Customers also have it bad: they're faced with planned obsolescence, no upgrades, encrypted parts ecosystem, green text FOMO. Apple/Google are owning all of payments, navigation, date/sex life, work calendars, emails, etc. etc. And they're not collecting data on us throughout all these activities?
Or what about Google practically owning web discoverability by paying everyone off?
Why don't we regulate smartphone vendors? This seems fair:
- Web is first class. Users can download apps off of it without scare walls.
- Apps can have native code, WASM, self-update, pack runtimes, etc.
- Apps can use their own auth rails, payments rails, etc.
- No limit on the types of apps. You can deploy non-Safari browsers and app stores of your own.
- Search engine providers can't buy access to every single pane of glass.
I'd argue that we should also regulate them on the basis of the power of their defaults, but we're in such a bind that I'd be fine with just the above.
The EU is either cracking down on or actively investigating how to crack down on all of the things you mentioned. Cookies were just their warm-up phase.
Actually, I'm sugarcoating things! The EU was cracking down on Android years before even the cookies. US techies genuinely thought EU antitrust was a shakedown to get money out of Google and have conveniently forgotten things since.
Well, the Digital Markets Act basically regulates the things you're asking for. It's specifically designed to tackle "gatekeepers", such as the Google/Apply duopoly on smartphones, Metas hold on chat (especially in Europe, where WhatsApp is very popular), Amazons hold on the online marketplace, etc.
It's a very new regulation, so we've yet to really see the effects.
SMS doesn’t work. It’s not just an issue of “green bubbles”.
Texts don’t get sent. Group messages don’t work. Images can’t be sent. Videos can’t be sent. You can’t send on WiFi.
It sucks.
I've used this extension for a long time, but there are actually websites like CNN that don't work with it now, because according to their lawyers they have to show that banner to everyone from the EU.
Do you have JavaScript enabled on that domain (CNN)? I use the NoScript extension as well as I Still Don't Care About Cookies, most JavaScripts are disabled (besides cnn.com and cnn.io), and I can read the articles just fine.
There was a period back in December that this happened to me. I use a combination of ublock origin, no script, privacy badger, and Ghostery — along with PiHole and NextDNS.
Yes, I know that’s probably a recipe for conflicting disaster, but like a lot of these temporary breakages, after about a week the problems with CNN disappeared. And I don’t think I did anything. But, I am US based too.
Or they could just not track people... ;-)
I just enable all of uBlock's cosmetic and "annoyances" lists. It seems to block them all.
Do you mean it agrees to all the tracking or declines it?