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.
You must log in or register to comment.
Not allowing users to access a service at all unless they accept cookies is often against GDPR. See: Can we use ‘cookie walls’?.
To quote:
In some circumstances, this approach is inappropriate; for example, where the user or subscriber has no genuine choice but to sign up. This is because the UK GDPR says that consent must be freely given.
If your use of a cookie wall is intended to require, or influence, users to agree to their personal data being used by you or any third parties as a condition of accessing your service, then it is unlikely that user consent is considered valid.
The key is that individuals are provided with a genuine free choice; consent should not be bundled up as a condition of the service unless it is necessary for that service.
These cookie banners often violate all sorts of GDPR rules even more explicitly than this example. For example did you know it’s not allowed to have pre-ticked boxes on cookie popups for non-essential cookies?
IIRC the EU also ruled that burying the rejection options under additional links counts as a violation. Hence why Google now has a Reject button next to the accept button. Most sites still do that.
Do you know if there is a EU-wide place to report such behavior?
The biggest privately owned TV channel in my country not only does that, but actually just redirects you to a pdf file if you want to “manage cookies”. And it’s not like I can submit a complaint on a national level, as the ruling party’s website uses google analytics without a cookie notice at all.
I think you report to your nation’s Data Protection Centre, each member has their own that takes the reports. If I was still in the EU I would have put more time into finding out how reports work.
https://dataprivacymanager.net/list-of-eu-data-protection-supervisory-authorities-gdpr/
Here you can find the GDPR authority per EU country.
Yes this would make sense.
Quote from “What methods can we use to obtain consent?”:
If you are asking for consent electronically, consent must be “not unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is provided”. You need to ensure you adopt the most user-friendly method you can.
For a website, hiding rejection behind a link should class as “unnecessarily disruptive”. If you can provide consent with the press of a single button then rejecting should also be the press of a single button.
I mean almost all websites fall foul of that. You often have to bury deep and end up with a palette of complicated choices and acceptances of individual tracking companies. It’s a bloody mess. The EU should just have mandated “do not track” adherence. There’s already a standard; just enforce it.
Most sites definitely don’t do this
I encounter something similar to this often.
There’s a lot of cookie banners where “Accept All Cookies” is a single button but in order to reject cookies you have to press a “Manage Cookies” link which will have something similar to a “Reject All Cookies” button in it.
It’s very annoying.
There is also a name for these kind of psychological tricks and pressure. It’s called nudging.
I found a small report on this by the EU Commission’s science and knowledge service. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC127856/JRC127856_01.pdf
There are surely even better resources.
Yeah this is very common, I don’t know why other people on here are gaslighting like it doesn’t happen. It’s this way for major sites like YouTube/Twitter/Twitch/etc too. Hell even embedding a YouTube video on a site is violating GDPR. It’s a good idea, but needs a version 2.0 patch to fix some exploits.
They’re still widely used for some (illegal) reason
Because they rest safe in the knowledge that you rarely if ever get taken to court for it. There are millions of web pages, it needs people to take action to do something about it, and just clicking “Yes all of them” to access the content you were just trying to get to is a far better solution in most situations than hiring a lawyer and investing a few years of legal proceedings, nevermind the money.
There is an organization called nyob (I think) pushing back against that and going through the courts to have more sites penalized for their violations. The process is slow, but I see more and more pages adopting the required “reject all” so there seems to be some pressure on them.
even worse offenders are the ones with tick boxes for “Legitimate Interest”, since legitimate interest is another grounds for processing (just ads freely given consent is one), the fact you got a “tick” box for it makes it NOT legitimate interest within the confines of the GDPR.
it also doesn’t matter what technology you use whether its cookies / urls / images / local storage / spy satellites. its solely about how you use the data…
why are the EU the only people that bother to actually govern in a modern and helpful way
They found a way around: accept all cookies or pay 2€/months. And it was decied legal by GDPR authorities
Some national authorities allow it, most don’t. The final word will be from the CJEU or the EDPB.
The what or what?
The EU supreme court or the EU data protection agency, roughly.
GDPR enforcement is left to the member states. The EDPB isn’t an agency, its more like all the national data protection authorities in a trench coat.
Those pages can just fuck off. There are many more pages.
Of course that’s just my opinion.
But what are they going to do about it?
“Here’s a fine, if you don’t pay it your site can no longer operate in the EU”
“… ok”
The EU is an important market for many websites, so yeah, that is usually what happens.
We’re specifically discussing websites that refuse to load in the EU anyways as per the post
I understood the post as those webpages only refusing to load, if the user declines Cookies. So, they do still want to benefit off of those EU users, who click “Accept”.
Ah, I think I misunderstood then.
Then half the web violates it or there is One Pixel button that closes the damn popup.
Cool. One less website to visit. Not like there is a shortage.
I love when the trash takes itself out
Any website that does that I just close the tab.
I’m working hard to make sure all websites do that.
Than I will go without internet. I’m over 40 I know how life was like before internet. I’ll be that crazy old man in someone’s neighborhood. So kindly please accept my GO FUCK YOURSELF award for your efforts.
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
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.
LOL, I also use DNS based filtering soooo I feel your pain.
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.
Reminds me, I need a pihole
The fun part is that websites that do this are illegal in the EU
They need to start flexing that 4% revenue / year fines
I hope one day they just start fining everyone doing it all at once
I don’t use adblock, and yet i keep getting “disable adblock to view this” messages, fuck this shit
Probably Adguard or Pihole? (Some network level blocking?)
Why the fuck would they prevent private browsing? I use that a lot to be sure the session is closed correctly.
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
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
I use this to deal with paywalled articles.
Your meme is funny, but people genuinely use these arguments to be against sensible EU laws, hence the response I imagine.
Yeah being unable to open… checks notes local news websites from the US has been a real deal breaker
Sometimes its relieving when you go to do something and you find out that you have already finished, lol.
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.
Yeah it’s a tragedy
In my experience it seems to be medical websites and recipe websites
Frankly I wish I could fit more US politics into my life, so it’s been hard, I tells ya.
Then you’ve picked the right place my friend!
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
Also from Germany. Some american news and media sites do that.
I’ve seen Italian sites that will put up a pay wall if you refuse the cookies.
some other just block access from the eu completely. (not a news site, but applebee’s does this)
All don’t offer cookie rejection.
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
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.
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.
Consent-o-matic is magnificent.
One extension to automatically accept, one extension to automatically delete everything after the tab is closed.
https://www.healthline.com/ - has a two-click “disable all”, but if you choose it you get a static site with 10 of their articles https://anon.healthline.com/
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.
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.
Tons of companies break the cookie law already, but enforcement seems to be rare
Doesn’t enforcement work by letting competitors sue you if you don’t follow the rules for these things?
What’s the cookie law?
If websites want to track you through cookies, they have to ask for permission.
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.
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.
So far I’ve only seen small US newspaper who did this. Is anyone angry about this?
There’s a medical website that appears in top searches (forget the name) that does it too but yeah, mostly seems to be news websites but not the big ones. In most cases Unlock Origin or the like can hide the panel they throw up to choose if you really need the info or archive or 12ft ladder can get you the info.
I think you’re referring to healthline: https://anon.healthline.com/
I dns blocked them after constantly clicking on the first result and it being their site. The “please enable cookies” wall started to get old fast
If only there was a way to store state of that decision…
That’s the one!
I love how my description of basically “it’s a website in searches” was enough for someone to figure it out 😄
I just happened to run into a few recently. Just venting some frustration.
https://www.tagesspiegel.de has no option to disable cookies without a subscription from contentpass. I think it’s contentpass’s business model.
Oh boo I can’t visit American propaganda websites what a loss to my European life style
I have run into this recently on several non-US, non-news sites. Your comment is propaganda.
propaganda
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
It means “something bad that I disagree with”, synonymous with communism, socialism, democrats, and Nazis, at least that’s what Infowars tells me.
Infowars tells you Nazis are something you disagree with? Haven’t heard from them in a while. Would have thought they’d quietly drop the Nazis are evil thing.
I absolutely do. Spreading the idea that news sites are all propaganda and the only entities involved in this kind of practice is, in itself, propaganda.
I think they were referring only to American news websites.
You’re right. I wasn’t clear in my comment. Saying all US-news sites are propaganda is propaganda. I’m not sure how that changes anything.
It’s a lost cause, the EU circlejerk is too strong, as clearly everything is a utopia over there with nothing wrong.
GDPR is a good idea, but still very flawed in practice which they really don’t like to admit anything wrong for some reason.
Bruh he was just being unclear
It’s a synonym for socialism and it means everything that i don’t like
That’s literally the point though…
No? If a website refuses to load because you refused tracking cookies, it’s still illegal under GDPR
I feel like people would have responded to this meme better if you didn’t depict the European Union as an NPC
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…)
- This was not about cookies, but processing of personal data and new definitions of such data. Cookies was just an example.
- By those laws, forcing user to consent with denying access to the service is declared illegal.
