undefined | Better HN

0 pointstherealpygon22h ago0 comments

You mean that because people take issue with the fact that the EU implements everything in almost the worst and most intrusive way possible? Sorry, you forgot to accept my view conversation cookie and I don’t want to be personally liable because you didn’t, so this response will be cut off in order to

0 comments

dpkirchner19h ago

Those cookie banners aren't required for conversations -- a persistent session cookie would be enough (if you don't want to make the user sign in every time). The cookie banner implementation is a burden companies choose to place on themselves (and then to burden their users).

therealpygonOP15h ago

I both agree and disagree, but the banner itself is, and isn’t really the point.

throwup23821h ago

Case in point. Americans can’t even get over a cookie popup. Can you imagine what we’d do if regulations led to stained carpets?

therealpygonOP21h ago

Clearly. It is definitely just about a pop-up and not anything else that was alluded to! How astute! You’re from the EU though I suspect that you’ve never even read that law in detail.

throwup23821h ago

When complaining about poor regulations you chose a cookie popup as an example. You couldn’t think of anything less trivial? If that’s what your mind reaches for when you think of “poor regulations” you’ll have to forgive me for assuming you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion.

1 more reply

somewhatgoated21h ago

I think this proves my point. The kind of regulations that GP proposed are just not realistic in US culture unless something changes dramatically.

I agree that cookie banners shouldn’t exist - but too many companies love to collect and sell my personal data so that is their current workaround. I would love for the EU regulation to clamp down on this as well but it’s a never ending process.

mystraline18h ago

The banners were NEVER required.

The banners were devised by the adtech conoanies as a way they though could bypass the GDPR, in the most anti-user way possible. But "allow all" was easy.

Its also likely those banners arent even legal to begin with.

This whole cookie banner law is an example of horrible co panies will act in order to subvert the letter and spirit of laws.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

dpkirchner19h ago

therealpygonOP15h ago

I both agree and disagree, but the banner itself is, and isn’t really the point.

throwup23821h ago

Case in point. Americans can’t even get over a cookie popup. Can you imagine what we’d do if regulations led to stained carpets?

therealpygonOP21h ago

Clearly. It is definitely just about a pop-up and not anything else that was alluded to! How astute! You’re from the EU though I suspect that you’ve never even read that law in detail.

throwup23821h ago

1 more reply

somewhatgoated21h ago

I think this proves my point. The kind of regulations that GP proposed are just not realistic in US culture unless something changes dramatically.

mystraline18h ago

The banners were NEVER required.

The banners were devised by the adtech conoanies as a way they though could bypass the GDPR, in the most anti-user way possible. But "allow all" was easy.

Its also likely those banners arent even legal to begin with.

This whole cookie banner law is an example of horrible co panies will act in order to subvert the letter and spirit of laws.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse