When did we lose the right to reject cookies?
Discussion
Have noticed that a lot of websites recently have been stopping you from reading them if you reject all cookies, when did this change happen? It used to be that they had to have a Reject All button but now it's either Accept All or Subscribe to Continue. It's mainly news websites but I've seen it on others too. Sign of the way things are heading?
Yeah I must admit they are one of the most annoying things.
However my trick is to use chrome browser with the extension‘I don’t care about cookies’ which automatically accepts them. Then in the browser settings choose to clear all cookies every time the browser is closed.
A vicious circle but kind of cheats the system.
However my trick is to use chrome browser with the extension‘I don’t care about cookies’ which automatically accepts them. Then in the browser settings choose to clear all cookies every time the browser is closed.
A vicious circle but kind of cheats the system.
Funnily enough we don't have a right to read a website. There's nothing wrong with a website requiring payment. These sites are offering two payment method; pay them cash or let them serve you with targeted advertising. They are under no obligation whatsoever to give you access in return for untargeted advertising. If they decide untargeted advertising earns them too little, that's your problem, not theirs.
Whoever decided to start this "accept cookies" thing needs shooting. I agree with the plugins but it's all just hassle and some times if you're between devices or using other platforms you can't defend like that
I said a few years back (an it's true now more than ever), the internet changed massively and continues to do so
I remember in 2000, it was all about web surfing, and going from site to site. My job (technical cybersecurity) often involves rapid research and so often I open up 10 links to find information only to find about 8 of them are littered in ads, popups, offers, newsletters, opinion polls to the point that just viewing the page is extremely hard
But this is a bigger issue of just cookies and general website usage
I don't think I'm 2026, the situation should broadly be that you just accept this utter s
t or you don't access. Especially as basically all companies now push you to the website. There utility companies, call centres, retainers, travel, finance, all will continually try to avoid people calling them. It will be either social media contact or website submissions.
Clothing sites which overlay things like "12 people bought this in the last hour", "158 people viewing this right now"
As I said before too, it's opinion polls, newsletters, it's a discount code offer, embedded advert, even worse is an embedded video.
I said a few years back (an it's true now more than ever), the internet changed massively and continues to do so
I remember in 2000, it was all about web surfing, and going from site to site. My job (technical cybersecurity) often involves rapid research and so often I open up 10 links to find information only to find about 8 of them are littered in ads, popups, offers, newsletters, opinion polls to the point that just viewing the page is extremely hard
ATG said:
Funnily enough we don't have a right to read a website. There's nothing wrong with a website requiring payment. These sites are offering two payment method; pay them cash or let them serve you with targeted advertising. They are under no obligation whatsoever to give you access in return for untargeted advertising. If they decide untargeted advertising earns them too little, that's your problem, not theirs.
This is overly simplistic and you're just stating the obvious. Like if someone complains about ads on YouTube, an obvious reply will be "don't use it then". Well yea ... Some sites you have to use like the DVLA site, or council one, or endless others they you're not wanting to use for enjoyment But this is a bigger issue of just cookies and general website usage
I don't think I'm 2026, the situation should broadly be that you just accept this utter s
t or you don't access. Especially as basically all companies now push you to the website. There utility companies, call centres, retainers, travel, finance, all will continually try to avoid people calling them. It will be either social media contact or website submissions. Clothing sites which overlay things like "12 people bought this in the last hour", "158 people viewing this right now"
As I said before too, it's opinion polls, newsletters, it's a discount code offer, embedded advert, even worse is an embedded video.
Edited by redrabbit29 on Tuesday 7th April 04:01
Edited by redrabbit29 on Tuesday 7th April 04:20
redrabbit29 said:
Whoever decided to start this "accept cookies" thing needs shooting. I agree with the plugins but it's all just hassle and some times if you're between devices or using other platforms you can't defend like that
Block the adverts at your router. Use a browser that blocks ads.
Use a different search engine.
Or is the concern anonymity?
We live in a world where companies need to make a profit - how do they do that without serving ads to people? How do the browsers make money to pay the developers?
I use a mix of browsers, ads are also blocked at the router.
@redrabbit29 ... You can't have it both ways. If someone is expressing the obvious, then they aren't being simplistic.
The problem is that consumers have been duped into thinking it's normal for people to give them access to data for free. It isn't and it never has been. All that the "cookie rules" have done is to start making this more obvious to consumers.
The result is that more consumers have started doing what lots of us have been doing for years; they're making it harder for website to track consumers' activity. That is reducing websites' income. So they're having to come up with more transparent ways of charging consumers for access to their sites. That is a good thing. People should know when they are paying for things. Prices should be transparent. People should have clear control over their private data.
We can't elevate ideas like "data on the internet should be monetarily free to consume" or "I shouldn't have to look at adverts" to the same level. They clearly aren't rights. They're "nice to have". You clearly can't compel people to give stuff away for free. In general, if a consumer wants something they have to pay for it. If they're paying for it, they need to know they're paying for it.
The problem is that consumers have been duped into thinking it's normal for people to give them access to data for free. It isn't and it never has been. All that the "cookie rules" have done is to start making this more obvious to consumers.
The result is that more consumers have started doing what lots of us have been doing for years; they're making it harder for website to track consumers' activity. That is reducing websites' income. So they're having to come up with more transparent ways of charging consumers for access to their sites. That is a good thing. People should know when they are paying for things. Prices should be transparent. People should have clear control over their private data.
We can't elevate ideas like "data on the internet should be monetarily free to consume" or "I shouldn't have to look at adverts" to the same level. They clearly aren't rights. They're "nice to have". You clearly can't compel people to give stuff away for free. In general, if a consumer wants something they have to pay for it. If they're paying for it, they need to know they're paying for it.
My understanding is that:
"First-party" cookies are OK - they enable a website to remember the page you've just been on. e.g. so Amazon et al can fill the shopping basket. Usually described as "essential" & you can't turn them off;
but
"Third-party" cookies are not OK - that's where they sell your details to often hundreds of so-called "associates". These are the ones you can turn off, presumably to meet GDPR requirements. Clearing the cache afterwards is a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted.
This is my understanding, happy to be corrected.
"First-party" cookies are OK - they enable a website to remember the page you've just been on. e.g. so Amazon et al can fill the shopping basket. Usually described as "essential" & you can't turn them off;
but
"Third-party" cookies are not OK - that's where they sell your details to often hundreds of so-called "associates". These are the ones you can turn off, presumably to meet GDPR requirements. Clearing the cache afterwards is a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted.
This is my understanding, happy to be corrected.
carl_w said:
ATG said:
How does it fail to comply with GDPR?
Consent is supposed to be opt-in. You cannot opt-in without paying. All that is happening is that some websites are no longer prepared to give you access unless either you pay or you allow them to place tracking cookies on your machine. They have never been under any obligation to give you free, un-tracked access to their website as that obviously wouldn't make any sense. It has always been their choice whether they give stuff away for free or demand payment for it.
The original problem was that they were charging people for access (by collecting and selling personal data) but the punters didn't know this was happening. It was a bit like a bar giving away free drinks while quietly pickpocketting the customers to cover the cost of the booze. So in comes the rule "don't deploy cookies unless the customer says OK first". Next phase is websites trying to figure out how to cover the lost revenue. That's what we're seeing now.
Suspicious_user said:
We live in a world where companies need to make a profit - how do they do that without serving ads to people? How do the browsers make money to pay the developers?
I use a mix of browsers, ads are also blocked at the router.
If the companies used ethical methods they’d get users on side.I use a mix of browsers, ads are also blocked at the router.
But going in subversively isn’t a winning move.
Worse still when they might ask for donations or subs and then start being virtue signalling douchebags and then come back asking you for money after you explicitly complained (yes Wikipedia looking at you).
miniman said:
You can accept cookies, so the site gets to make some money, or you can subscribe, so the site gets to make some money. Very straightforward.
OR you can just click away and find an alternative site, which is what I do on principle whenever a site tries to strong-arm me.Cookie acceptance is an interpretation of GDPR. The interpretation is changing, cookie banners are likely to also go away.
Ironically, there is a group that complains about the cookie banners and one that complains about the lack (of control).
The answer is simple; choose a browser that kills the banner and employ a plugin that kills cookies. I use CookieAutoDelete on Brave doing both - also it's manifest V2 so it will work. Add to that a Pihole, uBlock Origin and I have a quiet life on the Internet. It actually looks weird on other people's browsers....!!
Ironically, there is a group that complains about the cookie banners and one that complains about the lack (of control).
The answer is simple; choose a browser that kills the banner and employ a plugin that kills cookies. I use CookieAutoDelete on Brave doing both - also it's manifest V2 so it will work. Add to that a Pihole, uBlock Origin and I have a quiet life on the Internet. It actually looks weird on other people's browsers....!!
redrabbit29 said:
Clothing sites which overlay things like "12 people bought this in the last hour", "158 people viewing this right now"
As I said before too, it's opinion polls, newsletters, it's a discount code offer, embedded advert, even worse is an embedded video.
I've felt this way for a long time and have enjoyed this site that exemplifies the issue perfectly As I said before too, it's opinion polls, newsletters, it's a discount code offer, embedded advert, even worse is an embedded video.
https://how-i-experience-web-today.com/
aterribleusername said:
Sign of the way things are heading?
The one that gets on my goat is having to opt OUT of mailing lists / spam / sms contact etc - for many years you have not been allowed an opt out button (defaulting to opt-in) - but, so many websites still do it."Yes, I do not don't want to not receive further contact, (not)"
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff