> Of course the outcome of random unfriendly and annoying UIs is the only predictable outcome... so why wouldn't the EU responsible? Who else would be?
"Of course burglars choosing less protected houses is the only predictable outcome... so why wouldn't the makers of security systems be responsible? Who else would be?"
I still don't get it. Without the EU laws, it wouldn't be magically easier to block tracking cookies, they wouldn't offer a choice at all? What are you arguing for?
> As I said the only possible option where there could be design cohesion is via the browsers (or maybe a EU-controlled open source JS plugin but that's even worse).
> I don't ever use the cookie popups because fine-tune control of cookies doesn't have much privacy ROI. I want to use cookies on most sites and ublock does the rest.
The cookies for functionality/session are not affected by the cookie popup.
> I highly, highly doubt the tiny percentage of people not using an adblocker but are still technical enough to uses cookie popups regularly and effectively is really worth the cost.
I use an adblocker and still decline on the cookie popups. I assume you are doing, too, otherwise you wouldn't complain about popups you don't see?
> Has the ever been a study that shows the real-world utility of forcing sites to use cookie popups?
Me able to decline them is real-world utility. If a majority or at least significant portion of users is successfully tricked into accepting the cookies, then that calls for a refinement of the law along with better enforcement, not for retraction of the law. "Let them have it", what a bleak, defeatist thing to suggest.
You are blaming the makers of the law for what is very obviously the fault of the perpetrators, who are trying to get around the law in profoundly shady and just downright shitty ways.
I am glad the EU law exists, without it there wouldn't even be the option.
"Of course burglars choosing less protected houses is the only predictable outcome... so why wouldn't the makers of security systems be responsible? Who else would be?"
I still don't get it. Without the EU laws, it wouldn't be magically easier to block tracking cookies, they wouldn't offer a choice at all? What are you arguing for?
> As I said the only possible option where there could be design cohesion is via the browsers (or maybe a EU-controlled open source JS plugin but that's even worse).
We tried that, it failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track
> I don't ever use the cookie popups because fine-tune control of cookies doesn't have much privacy ROI. I want to use cookies on most sites and ublock does the rest.
The cookies for functionality/session are not affected by the cookie popup.
> I highly, highly doubt the tiny percentage of people not using an adblocker but are still technical enough to uses cookie popups regularly and effectively is really worth the cost.
I use an adblocker and still decline on the cookie popups. I assume you are doing, too, otherwise you wouldn't complain about popups you don't see?
> Has the ever been a study that shows the real-world utility of forcing sites to use cookie popups?
Me able to decline them is real-world utility. If a majority or at least significant portion of users is successfully tricked into accepting the cookies, then that calls for a refinement of the law along with better enforcement, not for retraction of the law. "Let them have it", what a bleak, defeatist thing to suggest.
You are blaming the makers of the law for what is very obviously the fault of the perpetrators, who are trying to get around the law in profoundly shady and just downright shitty ways.
I am glad the EU law exists, without it there wouldn't even be the option.