EDIT: I didn’t realize the anger this would bring out of people. It was supposed to be a funny meme based on recent real-life situations I’ve encountered, not an attack on the EU.
I appreciate the effort of the EU cookie laws. The practice of them just doesn’t live up to the theory of the law. Shady companies are always going to find a way to be shady.
- BurnedDonutHole ( @BurnedDonutHole@lemmy.ml ) 135•1 year ago
Any website that does that I just close the tab.
- Scoopta ( @Scoopta@programming.dev ) 109•1 year ago
I refuse to go to sites that do this, I also refuse to go to sites that block adblock…and specially the sites that detect and block private browsing, that one shouldn’t even be a thing
- Zikeji ( @Zikeji@programming.dev ) English36•1 year ago
Sites that block adblock - I have network based filtering I’m not going to take the time to specifically figure out what ad providers you’re using (which is probably that same as everyone else) just to unblock your shitty site.
- Scoopta ( @Scoopta@programming.dev ) 7•1 year ago
LOL, I also use DNS based filtering soooo I feel your pain.
- WaLLy3K ( @WaLLy3K@infosec.pub ) English10•1 year ago
Hilariously, I find the Pi-hole feature “disable for 5 seconds” often works because it’ll be down for long enough to load the page but not the ads.
- PersnickityPenguin ( @PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee ) 3•1 year ago
Reminds me, I need a pihole
- Scoopta ( @Scoopta@programming.dev ) 2•1 year ago
I don’t use pihole…didn’t know that was a thing…still don’t plan on using pihole but that’s cool
- hairyballs ( @hairyballs@programming.dev ) 12•1 year ago
Why the fuck would they prevent private browsing? I use that a lot to be sure the session is closed correctly.
- Scoopta ( @Scoopta@programming.dev ) 9•1 year ago
There’s lots of newspaper sites in the US, that do this. They’ll be like “wanna use private browsing, make an account, or go visit from normal browsing.” Idk why they do it but they do. Apparently there are discrepancies in the way browsers handle persistent storage features between private and non-private browsing that allow for detection
- lad ( @sukhmel@programming.dev ) 7•1 year ago
I’d guess they just want to keep track of what you read and how many articles. You still can wipe that information from your browser but private browsing makes it more convenient so they ban it
- Honytawk ( @Honytawk@lemmy.zip ) 3•1 year ago
Cause they can’t track your browser history that way.
- Pons_Aelius ( @Pons_Aelius@kbin.social ) 104•1 year ago
Cool. One less website to visit. Not like there is a shortage.
- CanadaPlus ( @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org ) 62•1 year ago
I’m pretty sure breaking your website with no cookies is against the rules, actually. It’s either serve the EU with GDPR-compliance or GTFO entirely.
Yeah, you could still just break the law, but as usual there’s a cost to that one way or the other.
- Vuraniute ( @Vuraniute@thelemmy.club ) 15•1 year ago
this. and honestly I wish more websites followed the “serve under gdpr or don’t have a European marker”. A random blog once wasn’t available in the EU because of GDPR. And you know what? It’s better than them violating GDPR and the EU doing nothing.
- Big P ( @peter@feddit.uk ) English13•1 year ago
Tons of companies break the cookie law already, but enforcement seems to be rare
- akulium ( @akulium@feddit.de ) 6•1 year ago
Doesn’t enforcement work by letting competitors sue you if you don’t follow the rules for these things?
- PersnickityPenguin ( @PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee ) 2•1 year ago
What’s the cookie law?
- Pixel ( @Pixel@lemmy.sdf.org ) 9•1 year ago
No cookies before dinner.
- Honytawk ( @Honytawk@lemmy.zip ) 3•1 year ago
If websites want to track you through cookies, they have to ask for permission.
- Big P ( @peter@feddit.uk ) English1•1 year ago
The cookie consent banner has to allow you to opt out of cookies as easily as accepting them
- Gamey ( @gamey@feddit.rocks ) 2•1 year ago
Almoat true, it actually has to be a opt in system, opt out is illegal already!
- Big P ( @peter@feddit.uk ) English2•1 year ago
Yeah, I think it has to default to off but I believe the banner they show shouldn’t make it harder to continue with it being off rather than turning it on
- CanadaPlus ( @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org ) 1•1 year ago
I’ve heard stories about some of the big guys getting hit with sizable GDPR fines. I don’t really know the full extent of what they do but I do imagine there’s someone that makes it their job to prosecute GDPR violations.
- jabjoe ( @jabjoe@feddit.uk ) English8•1 year ago
It’s more about the big boys. If they act in a way that breaks the GDPR, now the EU has a stick to hit them with.
- SnipingNinja ( @SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net ) 59•1 year ago
Your meme is funny, but people genuinely use these arguments to be against sensible EU laws, hence the response I imagine.
- SloganLessons ( @SloganLessons@kbin.social ) 47•1 year ago
Yeah being unable to open… checks notes local news websites from the US has been a real deal breaker
I have run into this recently on several non-US, non-news sites. I have actually never run into it on US local news sites, so I don’t know what you’re on about.
- SloganLessons ( @SloganLessons@kbin.social ) 3•1 year ago
Yeah it’s a tragedy
- kubica ( @kubica@kbin.social ) 6•1 year ago
Sometimes its relieving when you go to do something and you find out that you have already finished, lol.
- christophski ( @christophski@feddit.uk ) English3•1 year ago
In my experience it seems to be medical websites and recipe websites
- amio ( @amio@kbin.social ) 3•1 year ago
Frankly I wish I could fit more US politics into my life, so it’s been hard, I tells ya.
- explodicle ( @explodicle@local106.com ) English1•1 year ago
Then you’ve picked the right place my friend!
- genoxidedev1 ( @genoxidedev1@kbin.social ) 39•1 year ago
That’s gotta be quite some website you visited, if it didn’t load at all without cookies. As someone from Germany, who mostly rejects every sites cookies, except for the essential ones most of the time, but sometimes outright rejects all cookies, I’ve never encountered a website that refused to load upon doing that.
Not defending any webpages that do do that, just contributing my personal experience.
Also: this for chrome or this for fiefrerfx
- Pandoras_Can_Opener ( @Pandoras_Can_Opener@mander.xyz ) 15•1 year ago
Also from Germany. Some american news and media sites do that.
- PopularUsername ( @PopularUsername@lemmy.sdf.org ) 9•1 year ago
I’ve seen Italian sites that will put up a pay wall if you refuse the cookies.
- ErwinLottemann ( @ErwinLottemann@feddit.de ) 9•1 year ago
some other just block access from the eu completely. (not a news site, but applebee’s does this)
- BuddyTheBeefalo ( @BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml ) 6•1 year ago
All don’t offer cookie rejection.
- genoxidedev1 ( @genoxidedev1@kbin.social ) 6•1 year ago
Makes sense, I don’t use any of them, at all. I’m pretty sure there’s a place where you can report such webpages for doing that though, though I don’t know where at the moment.
Edit: possibly this one
- BuddyTheBeefalo ( @BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml ) 5•1 year ago
Netzpolitik.de checked Germany’s top 100 sites. Not many offer a single click rejection of cookies. Many of them only offer a paid ‘pure abo’ to disable tracking.
- Gamey ( @gamey@feddit.rocks ) 2•1 year ago
Yea, we have the same issue in Austria but technically that’s illegal behaviour and you should be able to report it somewhere!
- Dizzy Devil Ducky ( @AceFuzzLord@lemm.ee ) English1•1 year ago
Don’t know if it’s me or what, but I clicked on the first link and when it opened in my mobile browser, everything started shaking vertically like the page was suffering an earthquake. I’ll definitely have to look into that because I’ve never seen it happen before on any website like it.
It’s rare to see (probably since someone pointed out it doesn’t conform to GDPR standards), but I ran into a batch of them in short order recently, so it’s been on my mind.
- CanadaPlus ( @CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org ) 3•1 year ago
I exit in the EU a lot. Same, they mostly work fine with no cookies. It’s much more common to see one that just doesn’t let EU residents in.
- SanityFM ( @SanityFM@kbin.social ) 3•1 year ago
Consent-o-matic is magnificent.
One extension to automatically accept, one extension to automatically delete everything after the tab is closed.
- hdnsmbt ( @hdnsmbt@feddit.de ) 30•1 year ago
That’s fine. People who don’t care about cookies will accept them anyway and those who do care about cookies will know not to visit that site anymore.
- Queen HawlSera ( @HawlSera@lemm.ee ) English26•1 year ago
I feel like people would have responded to this meme better if you didn’t depict the European Union as an NPC
They’re the ones who made the law. Who else should have been in the meme?
- Honytawk ( @Honytawk@lemmy.zip ) 9•1 year ago
People complaining about the cookie law don’t understand the issue.
The law doesn’t state that websites have to show a cookie banner. It states that if a website wants to track you with cookies, they have to ask permission.
You can get websites (like lemmy and wikipedia) that don’t ask for cookies, because none of them try to track you.
So if a websites demands cookies or they don’t allow access, it is a clear sign that the website only cares about your visit if they can invade your privacy for profit.
Meaning it will just be a dumb clickbait website with no decent content anyway, that you should just skip.
- glad_cat ( @glad_cat@lemmy.sdf.org ) 24•1 year ago
So far I’ve only seen small US newspaper who did this. Is anyone angry about this?
- BuddyTheBeefalo ( @BuddyTheBeefalo@lemmy.ml ) 4•1 year ago
https://www.tagesspiegel.de has no option to disable cookies without a subscription from contentpass. I think it’s contentpass’s business model.
I just happened to run into a few recently. Just venting some frustration.
- Gamey ( @gamey@feddit.rocks ) 18•1 year ago
I generally agree with the statment under that image and it’s certainly a funny meme but also Illegal, sadly the enforcment is a joke but that’s not really the laws fault!
- sederx ( @sederx@programming.dev ) 18•1 year ago
That’s literally the point though…
- nothacking ( @nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de ) 13•1 year ago
Nearly all of these are illegal, but sadly there is little enforcement when it comes to this. (Tracking must be opt-in, not opt-out. Ignoring a banner must be interpreted as declining. Opting out must be a simple option, not navigating a complex and misleading menus. The users choice applies to any form of tracking, not just cookies…)
- RagingNerdoholic ( @RagingNerdoholic@lemmy.ca ) English2•1 year ago
Road to hell, good intentions and all that. Government fundamentally misunderstanding the role of cookies and the fact that browsers can handle user privacy with trivial effort by default rather than having every single website annoy the fuck out of you with a million goddamn notifications before actually showing you what you want to see.
- kornel ( @kornel@programming.dev ) 14•1 year ago
The annoying popups are an act of malicious compliance from data harvesting companies. The tracking industry wants people to associate the right to privacy with stupid annoyance, so that people will stop demanding privacy.
The legislation does not say anything about cookies. It’s about rights and responsibilities in data collection (no matter how it’s done technically). The “consent” part of it exists as a compromise, because there has been heavy lobbying against the legislation.
This is not a technical problem — we’ve had many technologies for it, and the industry has sabotaged all of them. There was the P3P spec in 2002! It has been implemented in IE that had 90%+ market share back then. And Google has been actively exploiting a loophole in IE’s implementation to bypass it and have unlimited tracking. Google has paid fines for actively subverting Safari’s early anti-tracking measures. Then browsers tried DNT spec as the simplest possible opt-out, and even that has been totally rejected by the data harvesting industry. There are easy technical solutions, but there are also literally trillions of dollars at stake, and ad companies will viciously sabotage all of it.
- wisplike_sustainer ( @wisplike_sustainer@suppo.fi ) 2•1 year ago
Like I care. I’ve got a plugin that automatically accepts all cookies, and another one that deletes cookies when I leave the page.
- SSUPII ( @SSUPII@sopuli.xyz ) 24•1 year ago
By accepting everything, you are also sending most of the time extra data to third parties. What you are doing is ill-advised if you care about privacy.
- 👁️👄👁️ ( @mojo@lemm.ee ) English4•1 year ago
Not really. If you’re using an adblocker, it’s the best option. It’s the path of least resistance, and tracking is blocked regardless if it’s tracked it not. No server will see if you pressed accept or decline. That’s why this addon exists.
- Honytawk ( @Honytawk@lemmy.zip ) 2•1 year ago
Just because your browser doesn’t show ads doesn’t mean you don’t get profiled.
- 👁️👄👁️ ( @mojo@lemm.ee ) English1•1 year ago
Yes it does. Open up your adblocker to see the tracker domains blocked.
- dan1101 ( @dan1101@lemm.ee ) 1•1 year ago
How does that work though? The cookies are presumably based on things like your IP and browser metrics, which a site gets from your browser. If your browser throws away the cookies then on your next visit you aren’t volunteering that you’ve been there before. But the site can still likely figure it out, but without the cookies it isn’t as certain. With well-constructed cookies they can be almost 100% sure you’re the same visitor.
- towerful ( @towerful@programming.dev ) 4•1 year ago
Cookie consent is actually supposed to be about all data tracking.
There are quite a few analytics that do fingerprinting “because it’s not a cookie, it’s not covered by Cookie Consent”. But it is still covered.
Some of them respect the fact that declining cookies is about declining tracking.So, if you consent to all cookies, you are also consenting to any fingerprinting that doesn’t rely on cookies. So deleting cookies wouldn’t remove that fingerprinting data.
- dan1101 ( @dan1101@lemm.ee ) 2•1 year ago
Gotcha, responsible site owners should not be tracking you if you decline cookies.
- DerpyPlayz18 ( @DerpyPlayz18@lemm.ee ) 2•1 year ago
Wait doesn’t it automatically deny them?
- Knusper ( @Knusper@feddit.de ) 3•1 year ago
The “I still don’t care about Cookies” extension does not, no.
This extension can do that: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/consent-o-matic/
However, since many webpages have illegally made it so refusing consent is more difficult than giving ‘consent’, that extension is significantly more complex and in my experience doesn’t work as reliably, unfortunately.
- Honytawk ( @Honytawk@lemmy.zip ) 2•1 year ago
Yeah, sometimes websites have so many hidden checkboxes, that consent-o-matic has a rough time going through all of them. Takes like 10-20 seconds to disable them all at computerized speed.
Imagine doing it by hand, lol.
- filcuk ( @filcuk@lemmy.zip ) 1•1 year ago
The above is wrong, the add on attempts to hide the prompt. It doesn’t accept nor reject it.
- wisplike_sustainer ( @wisplike_sustainer@suppo.fi ) 1•1 year ago
I Still don’t care about cookies? From its description:
In most cases, the add-on just blocks or hides cookie related pop-ups. When it’s needed for the website to work properly, it will automatically accept the cookie policy for you (sometimes it will accept all and sometimes only necessary cookie categories, depending on what’s easier to do).
So, yeah, doesn’t accept everything, but might accept some.
- Honytawk ( @Honytawk@lemmy.zip ) 1•1 year ago
Better to use consent-o-matic, which blocks all possible cookies instead of accepting them.
The websites still work perfectly anyway, it only preserves your privacy.