Advertisement



  1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Cookies. Do you usually "Accept" or "Reject" them?

Discussion in 'off topic' started by wulbert, Nov 24, 2021 at 8:16 PM.

  1. Joe P

    Joe P certified Buffologist / mod

    I've decided to take matters into my own hands so I sell my personal data directly to consumers.

    [​IMG]

    Joe
     
    psd122, TheDecameron and Bart like this.
  2. wulbert

    wulbert pfm Member

    So, visitors running an ad-blocker are just "takers", from the point of view of the web site owner? Using the service but contributing nothing (financially) by withholding their attention? I can understand that. I always see the ads at the top of the page on PFM, so I must be doing something "right".

    This raises an interesting point that maybe we see the places we visit regularly on the internet as "mine" and "just there". No thought that they need maintained or have overheads. I have this attitude to YouTube and will never pay for the ad-free version, even though I am happy to stump up for Netflix. Maybe because YouTube has become gradually more monetised and advert bound over time rather than paywalled from the outset. "They" are ruining it for me, so I'm in a huff with them. Childish I guess.
     
  3. venton

    venton pfm Member

    Right click any link, choose 'open incognito'. You can then say accept cookies, but they'll not be saved when you close browser. Saves a lot of time.
     
    psd122 and Sue Pertwee-Tyr like this.
  4. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    I don’t have an ad-block installed on any browser I use. The nearest I get is on some sites where pages are unreadable due to the crazy degree of ad content, e.g. Allmusic.com, I’ll hit Safari’s ‘show reader view’ just so I can actually read the damn thing! The Independent is just as bad. I do clear all cookies every couple of months though.

    I guess because it is my main income stream I view these things differently. I’m certainly aware just how many hours a day it takes to run a good website, and it is obviously exponentially more for those providing proper journalism etc. I’d far prefer ads to paywalls, and that is really the choice. The only sites outside of that are either shops, propaganda, or vanity publishing!

    YouTube baffles me as I watch hours of it each day and I never see any ads at all. I watch via my Sony TV which has an Android OS, so designed by Google who also own YouTube. I have not installed any ad blockers, everything OS-wise is in its default setting, yet I get no ads! I really don’t understand this at all and end up feeling sorry for my favourite content providers so tend to buy merch, make donations etc instead!
     
    wulbert likes this.
  5. Hook

    Hook Blackbeard's former bo'sun.

    Accept almost all. I only reject cookies if the web site is unencrypted (i.e., if there is no lock icon beside the website address).
     
  6. chiily

    chiily PFM Special Builder

    I also wonder what "Legitimate Interest" actually means against a list of companies I have never heard of.
     
  7. mansr

    mansr Objectionist

    The Independent is often impossible to view without an ad blocker due to an infinitely expanding ad box making anything beyond the first paragraph inaccessible.
     
    Sue Pertwee-Tyr likes this.
  8. mansr

    mansr Objectionist

    It means those companies pay a higher rate.
     
  9. Dave***t

    Dave***t Revolutionary relativist

    You could use the DuckDuckGo browser - that allows you to ‘fireproof’ certain sites, which protects them when you hit the purge button.

    It also allows you to drop privacy protections for certain sites such as if, for example, you wanted to let pfm through but maintain stricter automatic privacy settings elsewhere.
     
    Sue Pertwee-Tyr likes this.
  10. Frizzy

    Frizzy Liberal anarchist

    Ditto on duck duck, I use when going to certain sites, or getting in touch with people who dislike google, or are just plain paranoid.
    In day to day activity I don’t fuss over cookies.
     
  11. eternumviti

    eternumviti Wittering on the Vine

    Reject, reject. If the interface doesn't permit instant rejection, with all boxes unticked, I'm straight back out again, simply can't be bothered. Have been infuriated on the odd occasions when I've accepted cookies only to find I'm on the wrong side of a paywall.

    This is GDPR. There should be a facility whereby you set out your preferences on your browser once, and there it stays, unless you wish to override it.
     
    gavreid and ff1d1l like this.
  12. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr Well, I can dream, can’t I?

    Actually, it's not GDPR, it was the EU Cookie Directive that did this*. That predates GDPR by 7 years and is different to, and separate from, data protection legislation. The government misinformed itself earlier this year, when it elided cookies and data protection when announcing a review of our UK data protection laws. I know many people are very irritated about cookies, and this just helped to make them irritated about data protection, too. Which is a huge shame because data protection, like health and safety legislation, is hardly ever the problem in and of itself.

    'Legitimate interests' is a term used in data protection to provide one lawful basis for processing personal data. It is an alternative to consent, legal obligation, contract, and various other lawful bases for processing personal data that are provided for in GDPR. It's a bit misplaced in the context of cookies, but basically the site owners are claiming they can set those particular cookies without your express consent, because their interests override your interests. What they mean is that there's no detriment to you, so your interests in refusing are minimal, but their interests in whatever the cookie is for are of value, and legitimate. Again, this is conflating data protection and cookies somewhat and doesn't really help. It's pretty meaningless, because the cookie directive means they have to let you refuse them anyway...


    *Not, IMHO, the EU's finest hour, it has to be said. It was well-meaning but ultimately fruitless.
     
    Paul L and Mike Reed like this.
  13. PsB

    PsB Citizen of Nowhere™

    I reject "legitimate interest" cookies, as I don't agree their interest is legitimate. If the site makes it difficult to do so (dozens of pages of little sliders that must be turned off manually) then I just leave that site.
     
    eternumviti and Sue Pertwee-Tyr like this.
  14. Marchbanks

    Marchbanks Hat and Beard member

    No sultanas is definitely bad news in my book.
     
  15. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr Well, I can dream, can’t I?

    Yup. You can keep your chocolate chips, give me dried fruit every time.
     
  16. eternumviti

    eternumviti Wittering on the Vine

    Presumably then its just coincidence that these infuriating bloody 'allow/decline' pop-ups have only become ubiquitous in the post-GDPR period, rather than in any of the seven years preceding it?
     
  17. laughingboy

    laughingboy pfm Member

    Yes, this all flows out of The Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations 2003, which was amended in 2011. The key section is Section 6, here. But it was pretty toothless - it gave people the right to sue for damages or to apply to the Information Commissioner for an enforcement notice. So, companies took little notice.

    GDPR introduced potentially big fines, but has so far been almost unenforced. In the meantime, cookies pop-ups have become maddeningly complex. I suspect that this is a deliberate ploy by the industry (IAB, Google, Facebook) to try to deflect attention from a business practice which gives them ever more power ('tracking'), in the hope that popular frustration at the pop-ups gives them the time and space to lobby for weakening of the law (which is to say, weakening of consumer rights).
     
  18. TheDecameron

    TheDecameron Unicorns fart glitter.

    What’s the worst thing these cookies can do?
     
  19. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr Well, I can dream, can’t I?

    They were there, but less obvious (usually just a discreet little banner which most people ignored or clicked past). Laughingboy has a credible explanation for why the change since GDPR. The law's no different, but the potential penalties are higher.
     
  20. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr Well, I can dream, can’t I?

    They can allow the parties who set the cookies to track you across the internet. So they can build up a profile of your interests, habits, personal preferences, etc, and use that to market stuff to you or otherwise seek to influence your behaviour or choices. They may also sell that profile data to others who can also use it to influence you without you knowing.
     

Share This Page





Advertisement


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice