alt Hacker News> it’s well-understood that very few people actually read those things, they just want to get them out of the way.
This is a jaw-drop moment for me every single time I observe someone else using the web and quickly clicking "accept" on every single cookie banners that pops up, without ever wasting a second even reading what they're accepting. It's mind boggling to me. Sure, I'm in IT, so surely I'm more aware of data mining, profiling, and other privacy-related aspects. But in many cases, you could just click "reject" and the banner would also disappear...
To me, having a browser setting for cookies is the only sane way to handle this, it's surprising that this was not considered from the beginning.
Replies
It literally does not matter what you pick on these things - most of them don't work anyway. Think about it: Of course they don't. All the third-party javascript is already on the page. Anything you do inside the sandbox with UI provided by, usually, some other third-party, can't just magically force all that other code to behave in a specific way, unless someone has done a great deal of work to integrate the cookie banner code. If the first-party site were that competent at instrumenting every bit of third-party code the marketing department threw at the website department, they wouldn't even need the third-party cookie banner vendor in the first place.
Clicking those "REJECT!" buttons might make you feel empowered, but it's pointless. Just set your browser to delete all the cookies at the end of the session except for whatever sites you want to allow to 'remember' you.
The whole thing has always been a problem to be properly solved by the browser, and it's probably just the fact that Google makes the only browser that matters, that it's been foisted upon every website owner, who mostly just wants basic analytics and to track conversions from the ads they run, and isn't "selling your data."
The browser is your user agent. If it's sending any information up to web servers on every request that isn't okay with you, why are you using it?
It's a nag-box that appears every time someone visits a new website. Of course people are going to click it away as fast as possible. In the few cases you repeatedly visit a website one might want to reconsider, but by then it's out of mind due to not being shown after giving consent.
It is known that warnings and pop-ups that show up almost all the time yield diminishing returns. I think it was named "normalization of deviation" by some folks in a blog a while ago, and I believe that name fits. If you get warned about missing https all the time, or that something might be dangerous (even though it does precisely what you want it to do), it will loose its effect by the time you actually need it.
You can argue this is malicious compliance, but if you want it to go away it would probably be easier to go for banning tracking and personalized ads altogether. Eliminate the reason for this behavior, so to speak.
> To me, having a browser setting for cookies is the only sane way to handle this, it's surprising that this was not considered from the beginning.
There is one. It's a DNT header. Knucklehead websites ignore it.
> But in many cases, you could just click "reject" and the banner would also disappear...
Oftentimes the reject flow is substantially more annoying than the accept flow. I click reject myself when it's an option, but I can absolutely understand how people might get conditioned to click accept when clicking reject might result in more popups.
I believe myself to be fairly well-informed, and usually accept the cookies, because I don’t foresee any potential harms, and it helps the people running the website. I am worried about many things like phishing and hacking/data leaks, but the valuable data isn’t cookie-related.
What harm are you worried about?
Well, the whole thing is theater anyway. It does not matter what you choose.
They will fingerprint you with or without cookies. They may or not try to honor your preferences, but their "partners" will not try, and by the time you see that banner, it's all out there.
"Accept" is the close button.
"To me, having a browser setting for cookies is the only sane way to handle this, it's surprising that this was not considered from the beginning."
This is exactly what browsers did back the 90s, they asked about every single cookie.
Then browsers got configurable options to simply accept either all cookies, no cookies, or only first party cookies (excluding third party sites unrelated to the domain you visited).
For now well over 20 years I have disabled 3rd party cookies in all browsers I use, and only in a few cases overall did I need to make exemptions.
There is also the fact that by rejecting, the cookie that remembers that preference expires after like a day, so you have to click that dumb banner almost every time you visit the site.
This happens when countless websites continue to do the illegal thing of making rejection take more effort than accepting, without being sued into oblivion for repeat offenders. Roughly 9 out of 10 websites today will be doing this illegal shit, and we are too timid to tear them down.
People expect visiting a website to be read only or contained within a sandbox to not read other files on their computer which is correct. Most people just don’t care about tracking and want to get to the content.
Most people reasonably assume that if they click Reject they won't get the page they're looking for.
>This is a jaw-drop moment for me every single time I observe someone else using the web and quickly clicking "accept"
There's a mismatch between the velocity at which people visit sites and the time it takes to navigate the cookie particulars of each site.
And, we can dismiss this as people being uninformed or lazy but the reality it is that's actually not so unreasonable. Cookies are in some ways near the bottom of the list where privacy is concerned, given everything else from breaches to search dossiers to device finger-printing to mobile device location-tracking to the ubiquity of cameras in the real world, and on and on.
The idea that we're clawing back privacy in any meaningful sense by blocking a few cookies here and there is kind of quaint.
Because 90% don't even do anything? It turns out it's actually one of those really annoying problems to delay cookies which were supposed to be sent already in the HTTP request response until a user interaction has happened. And on a lot of pages, non technical people embed random 3rd party resources. And these 3rd party resources might claim to use only "technically necessary" cookies, but of course that's nonsense; I'm not visiting the 3rd party.
Agreeing to terms and contracts without reading or at least skimming them is not responsible adult behavior and should not be used as a model for legislation, no matter how many people do it. I agree that we do have a culture where private law is not taken very seriously, and that's very unfortunate.
People do not have a right (morally speaking, not legally) to access or use a service (or a website) etc without having to read/agree to the terms (applies to analog and digital).
"Accept all" always makes it go away immediately.
Some variant on "reject" takes more effort like 70% of the time. Which is on purpose, of course. The ones that aren't maliciously-complying have a "necessary only" button that insta-closes it, but tons pretend that you might want to allow some spying but not all of it and make you go through another screen if you don't just "accept all".
> To me, having a browser setting for cookies is the only sane way to handle this, it's surprising that this was not considered from the beginning.
Then it'd be possible to default it to "nope" (Firefox, and perhaps Safari, might do this) or to allow a "never, anywhere" setting the first time the question is asked, and malware and spyware vendors know that'd mean a much larger proportion of denials.