Comment by SpecialistK

Comment by SpecialistK 20 hours ago

It's a cool concept, but let's be honest: it's what the author thinks are good regulations. And it only ever can be, because policy is subjective.

I happen to agree with almost all of them, and most doubt is the devil in the details. The efficiency one, for example - if efficiency in an appliance comes at the expense of longevity (ie, it uses less materials or R&D is put into power use over anything else) then that may be a net negative. And the GDPR, a great regulation for customer data, has had the side effect of putting cookie law banners everywhere which makes the web more frustrating.

And I hate to say it, because it's my own weird ick, but I will forgo eating if the only utensils are wood. Simply cannot handle the feeling of it against my teeth and tongue. Thank God there are newer compostable single use utensils becoming common.

Pooge 13 hours ago

> And the GDPR, a great regulation for customer data, has had the side effect of putting cookie law banners everywhere which makes the web more frustrating

I say it countless times, but no. Data harvesting Big Tech put cookie banners everywhere and make the web frustrating for you. If they respected Do Not Track, they would not need to show you the banner. Instead, they don't take it into account and prefer to show you a banner that takes up all page instead of having a small banner that asks you if you want to agree to optional cookies.

Reply View 7 replies

SpecialistK 9 hours ago

That doesn't pass the sniff test. If a masked assailant in the street is going to rob me, but has to say a certain sentence before so and almost uniformly does, that speaks to the legal priorities of those making the laws.
If hoovering up my data is bad, make it illegal. Don't wrap it up in niceties and then deflect the blame.

Reply View | 5 replies
- Pooge 9 hours ago
  
  The priority of the GDRP was that you needed your users' consent to process their personal data. The industry answer—cookie banners—is something that the industry created because their tracking incentives were higher than their users' experience.
  Do Not Track was a thing since basically forever and the industry willfully chose to ignore it.
  If you want to keep using websites that have dark patterns and track you, that's on you. I would argue it's even better than before because at least the average user would notice he's being tracked and the website makes it clear that the user's interests are not aligned with the website's owner.
  Blaming it on the lawmakers—which I use as mockery as much as the next guy—is of bad faith, in my opinion.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  SpecialistK 9 hours ago
  
  Why is blaming the lawmakers, the only ones who can enact laws governing this, "bad faith"? Bad faith does not mean a decision or opinion you disagree with.
  Do Not Track was ignored because there was no legal requirement to. Wikipedia is not the best source, I know, but its first sentence on the "Adoption" section is: "Very few advertising companies actually supported DNT, due to a lack of regulatory or voluntary requirements for its use"
  Lack of regulatory requirements. In other words, no government had the smarts or the spine to make it a law. Who is to blame for making the law...? Lawmakers.
  "that's on you" is also an absolute cop-out, in my opinion. Lots of things on the internet are illegal, usually for good reason. I don't think I need to list examples. The EU, EU member-states, and other jurisdictions have no problem making horrendous things on the web illegal to host or visit. If data harvesting is bad, explicitly make it illegal.
  "The average user would notice he's being tracked" also is the counter-argument to my point - if every site, no matter how banal, has a bar at the bottom with a big blue button that effectively says "yeah whatever go away" then it's ignored. Boy who cried wolf. If this bar only showed up on Meta and Google and Doubleclick ads then maybe it would carry some weight.
  I didn't think it was necessary to say, but apparently it is: my criticism of this part of the GDPR is not to invalidate the good work it has done for user rights on the web. Only to note that regulations, no matter how well intentioned (the point of the OP), come with side-effects that were unseen at the time. Don't waste keystrokes defending those unfortunate side effects (while apparently blaming everyone except those with the power to change it) but instead form campaigns and working groups to propose something better and encourage your legislators to adopt it.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
NeuralNomaD123 12 hours ago

[dead]

Reply View | 0 replies

immibis 12 hours ago

Gosh. The law says I have to ask for consent before I slap you in the face. Now you're spammed with asks for consent to slap you in the face. Silly law!

Reply View 1 reply

SpecialistK 9 hours ago

I'm 90% sure that this wouldn't pass, even in jurisdictions like Washington State where mutual combat is legal.
The EU passed laws regarding cookies. Were they so inept as to not understand how cookies are used, or are they in cahoots with the bad actors to give them an out? Hanlon's Razor is not kind to the regulations (/regulators) either way.

Reply View | 0 replies