Comment on EU consumers don’t trust US goods: a look into Trump’s trade deficit claims
meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works 4 days agoThe law may not dictate cookie banners directly, but it creates the conditions for their existence. It’s a bureaucratic sleight of hand: pass vague rules, let corporations interpret them in the most obnoxious way possible, and then claim innocence. Convenient, isn’t it?
And no, these banners aren’t about protecting you. If they were, the default would be no tracking, not a labyrinth of opt-outs designed to exhaust you into compliance. It’s surveillance capitalism with a thin coat of legal paint.
Stop pretending this is about your data or privacy. It’s about maintaining the illusion of control while the system grinds on. Whether it’s EU paternalism or Silicon Valley exploitation, the result is the same: your autonomy sold off piece by piece.
froh42@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Maybe read the law? That’s exactly what it says. Obnoxious cookie banners are and have been illegal from day one. Denying usage of your personal data must be as simple as accepting it.
I admit it took much too long for the courts to effectively rule against the companies doing obnoxious cookie banners and even then it’s hard because a lot of the companies doing such crap are outside of jurisdiction and hard to get.
On top only after that shit has been around a few years (and yes you’ll have a relevant amount of court decisions only after 10 years or so) rules become clearer as there have been a number of cases - and guess what, the companies doing the obnoxious banners lose those cases.
But still a lot of them do it. Why? Because the fines are relatively low. They can get away with it, especially when they get on a standpoint oopsie we didn’t know.
Now one thing that hasn’t been in court is a model “pay a membership fee or we’ll use your data”. This is what Meta does, they demand a crazy fee (I think something like 35 Euro per month per person) or they’ll use your data. Btw there’s no cookie banner on Insta/Facebook etc. (because cookie banners are not required by law) - Meta just asks that I decide whether I pay or they can use my data (from time to time)
But still also the pay or be sold model is widely believed to be illegal under GDPR, but that will only get clear until one successfully (or unsuccessfully) has a court case against a high profile target like Meta or one of the big newspapers in EU which all use the same idea by putting up paywalls with an “allow tracking, then it’s free” option.
I’ve been professionally doing this shit for quite some time now, building solutions to get consent from customers without cookie banners. For EU car makers, btw - and believe me, they don’t like it any more than you do. If they could they would love to analyze every bit of tracking data they could get, your driving habits, where you go etc. Cars are smartphones on wheels nowadays. The only reason you don`t have obnoxious cookie banners when you start up your car? Obnoxious cookie banners are illegal - AND car producers are easier to catch in court than a media company on the other side of the globe.
meowmeowbeanz@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
The law is a façade, a hollow promise dressed up as protection. You cling to it like a life raft while corporations sail circles around it. “Obnoxious cookie banners are illegal”? Sure, and yet here they are, thriving. Why? Because enforcement is a joke, and the fines are pocket change for these giants.
Your timeline of court cases and “rules becoming clearer” is laughable. By the time the courts catch up, the damage is done, and the companies have moved on to the next exploit. It’s a perpetual game of whack-a-mole, and you’re cheering for the mallet.
Meta’s “pay or be tracked” scheme is just extortion with extra steps. Call it illegal all you want—until someone actually stops them, it’s just business as usual.
AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 2 days ago
Are you sure you want to talk about facades when you use LLMs to generate your comments?