if you see a cookie popup, it’s because the website operator decided to use third-party tracking cookies on their site; they could have easily spared their users the banner by using privacy-friendly analytics, or no analytics instead. blaming the EU for inconveniencing users with these warnings is doing free PR for the worst parts of the advertising industry.
(some might say that justifying the planned obsolescence practice of shortening phone lifespans by making battery replacement more difficult by saying it’s because it’s the only way to achieve features that people demanded - who asked people what features they wanted on phones, anyway? - is doing free PR for phone companies, but I think that point has been made way better than I could, in many other comments which you seem to have not read)
Seriously we are talking about a battery replacement in a phone after 3-4 years for most people. 80 bucks for a phone that costed you 1200… This isn’t an issue for the average user in my oppinion.
First, that’s not true. Tons of websites use non-essential cookies for various functions that have nothing to do with tracking, all of which would be covered under the GDPR and require a cookie popups.
Expecting website operators to run we sites without any analytics and advertising is an absurd expectation. They have to bring in revenue somehow. That’s what privacy and ad blocking extensions are for.
Yeah, no, sorry. The EU fucked up the internet for the entire world.
Tons of websites use non-essential cookies for various functions that have nothing to do with tracking, all of which would be covered under the GDPR and require a cookie popups.
I have never run into any website using “functions that have nothing to do with tracking” which require cookies. Could you give an example?
Expecting website operators to run we sites without any analytics and advertising is an absurd expectation. They have to bring in revenue somehow.
I’ve personally used two analytics systems that don’t require cookies, Plausible and Matomo.
I’m anti-advertising (I think there are better ways for websites to make money) but it’s totally untrue that cookies are the only way to implement advertising.
That’s what privacy and ad blocking extensions are for.
Which aren’t available on all devices or operating systems, and require more technical knowledge (and more time) than most people have.
The EU is far from perfect, but its cookie rules are a great example of regulation working as intended, and making the default better for everyone – just like this rule on removable batteries.
While I disagree with CocktailPlasma in his anti-EU rhetoric, I wanted to note that cookies can be / are used for basic functionality on a website.
To keep you logged in is often done with a session cookie, for example. There are different ways, but mostly some kind of data piece needs to be set on the browser side.
The commonly seen method of using a checkbox and a simple information note such as “remember me (uses cookies)” next to the submit form would be an appropriate means of gaining consent
if you see a cookie popup, it’s because the website operator decided to use third-party tracking cookies on their site; they could have easily spared their users the banner by using privacy-friendly analytics, or no analytics instead. blaming the EU for inconveniencing users with these warnings is doing free PR for the worst parts of the advertising industry.
(some might say that justifying the planned obsolescence practice of shortening phone lifespans by making battery replacement more difficult by saying it’s because it’s the only way to achieve features that people demanded - who asked people what features they wanted on phones, anyway? - is doing free PR for phone companies, but I think that point has been made way better than I could, in many other comments which you seem to have not read)
Seriously we are talking about a battery replacement in a phone after 3-4 years for most people. 80 bucks for a phone that costed you 1200… This isn’t an issue for the average user in my oppinion.
First, that’s not true. Tons of websites use non-essential cookies for various functions that have nothing to do with tracking, all of which would be covered under the GDPR and require a cookie popups.
Expecting website operators to run we sites without any analytics and advertising is an absurd expectation. They have to bring in revenue somehow. That’s what privacy and ad blocking extensions are for.
Yeah, no, sorry. The EU fucked up the internet for the entire world.
I have never run into any website using “functions that have nothing to do with tracking” which require cookies. Could you give an example?
I’ve personally used two analytics systems that don’t require cookies, Plausible and Matomo.
Here’s a banner advertising service that doesn’t use cookies.
Even Google is dropping cookies.
I’m anti-advertising (I think there are better ways for websites to make money) but it’s totally untrue that cookies are the only way to implement advertising.
Which aren’t available on all devices or operating systems, and require more technical knowledge (and more time) than most people have.
The EU is far from perfect, but its cookie rules are a great example of regulation working as intended, and making the default better for everyone – just like this rule on removable batteries.
While I disagree with CocktailPlasma in his anti-EU rhetoric, I wanted to note that cookies can be / are used for basic functionality on a website.
To keep you logged in is often done with a session cookie, for example. There are different ways, but mostly some kind of data piece needs to be set on the browser side.
“Remember me” functionality doesn’t require a cookie banner: