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.

    • purplemonkeymad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

    • Sysosmaster@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 years ago

      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…

    • Steeve@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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”

      • Knusper@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 years ago

        The EU is an important market for many websites, so yeah, that is usually what happens.

        • Steeve@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          We’re specifically discussing websites that refuse to load in the EU anyways as per the post

          • Knusper@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 years ago

            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”.

    • ecamitor@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      They found a way around: accept all cookies or pay 2€/months. And it was decied legal by GDPR authorities

      • koper@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Some national authorities allow it, most don’t. The final word will be from the CJEU or the EDPB.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yeah, it is great here.

        Either the website is great and doesn’t ask anything.

        Or it asks for cookie consent, which you can decline in 1 click.

        Or it pulls one of those “break the website” tricks which will get them sued sooner or later.

        Or they block access to EU members, at which point you know they only exist to extract your data anyway.

  • Scoopta@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    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

    • Zikeji@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • Scoopta@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 years ago

        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

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 years ago

          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

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • Vuraniute@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

    • Big P@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 years ago

      Tons of companies break the cookie law already, but enforcement seems to be rare

      • akulium@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        Doesn’t enforcement work by letting competitors sue you if you don’t follow the rules for these things?

        • Big P@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          The cookie consent banner has to allow you to opt out of cookies as easily as accepting them

            • Big P@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              Yeah, I think it has to default to off but I believe the banner they show shouldn’t make it harder to continue with it being off rather than turning it on

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’ve heard stories about some of the big guys getting hit with sizable GDPR fines. I don’t really know the full extent of what they do but I do imagine there’s someone that makes it their job to prosecute GDPR violations.

    • jabjoe@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s more about the big boys. If they act in a way that breaks the GDPR, now the EU has a stick to hit them with.

  • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Your meme is funny, but people genuinely use these arguments to be against sensible EU laws, hence the response I imagine.

  • genoxidedev1@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    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

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    I feel like people would have responded to this meme better if you didn’t depict the European Union as an NPC

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        People complaining about the cookie law don’t understand the issue.

        The law doesn’t state that websites have to show a cookie banner. It states that if a website wants to track you with cookies, they have to ask permission.

        You can get websites (like lemmy and wikipedia) that don’t ask for cookies, because none of them try to track you.

        So if a websites demands cookies or they don’t allow access, it is a clear sign that the website only cares about your visit if they can invade your privacy for profit.

        Meaning it will just be a dumb clickbait website with no decent content anyway, that you should just skip.

  • SloganLessons@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    Yeah being unable to open… checks notes local news websites from the US has been a real deal breaker

    • MDFL@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

    • kubica@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Sometimes its relieving when you go to do something and you find out that you have already finished, lol.

    • amio@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Frankly I wish I could fit more US politics into my life, so it’s been hard, I tells ya.

  • hdnsmbt@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • Gamey@feddit.rocks
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I generally agree with the statment under that image and it’s certainly a funny meme but also Illegal, sadly the enforcment is a joke but that’s not really the laws fault!

  • drkt@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    Oh boo I can’t visit American propaganda websites what a loss to my European life style

    • MDFL@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      I have run into this recently on several non-US, non-news sites. Your comment is propaganda.

        • Tony Smehrik@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          It means “something bad that I disagree with”, synonymous with communism, socialism, democrats, and Nazis, at least that’s what Infowars tells me.

          • Pandoras_Can_Opener@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            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.

        • MDFL@programming.devOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          I absolutely do. Spreading the idea that news sites are all propaganda is, in itself, propaganda.

            • MDFL@programming.devOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              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.

              • smollittlefrog@lemdro.id
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                They didn’t say that either. Where do you get this idea from that they’re talking about (all) US news sites?

                They said “American propaganda websites”. That may include some news sites. It may also not include some news sites.

                The most you could infer from their statement is that only American propaganda websites violate the GDPR.

                Of course websites exist that violate the GDPR and are not American propaganda websites.

                But the vast majority of websites commiting severe violations of the GDPR that an average European encounters will be American propaganda websites.

                (Believe it or not, Europeans don’t often visit websites written in Russian or Chinese.)

              • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 years ago

                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.

  • nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    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…)

  • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago
    1. This was not about cookies, but processing of personal data and new definitions of such data. Cookies was just an example.
    2. By those laws, forcing user to consent with denying access to the service is declared illegal.