
Number of Third-Party Cookies on EU News Sites Dropped by 22% Post-GDPR - ColinWright
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/number-of-third-party-cookies-on-eu-news-sites-dropped-by-22-percent-post-gdpr/
======
pornel
And my browsing of sites with malicious compliance has dropped 100%. I __don
't __agree the tracking, and if there isn 't an easy way to dismiss these
popups, then I'm going to pass.

The worst are the sites that include a _3rd party script_ to handle tracking
opt-in for them. They haven't learned anything.

~~~
kodablah
> And my browsing of sites with malicious compliance has dropped 100%

Wouldn't you want to boycott sites that are also non-compliant? How do you
know which sites are truly maliciously complying or are non-compliant?
Meaning, if you only know the ones that tell you so, you may even be
disincentivizing transparency or at the least sites that have ignored the GDPR
altogether probably still have your support? Or if they don't and you are
somehow able to tell whether a site is violating the GDPR, why could you not
have put your boycott into practice without government assistance?

------
privateSFacct
And the buttons and popups required to browse those websites has doubled.

With the euro websites - it's gotten to the point where you could put anything
in those terms, and folks would accept them - they are so used to just
clicking through to read things.

~~~
Nurw
If the popups were actually following GDPR then people wouldn't accept. But
90% of these popups are not. It is clearly stated in GDPR that it should be as
easy to opt-out as opt-in, and it is my firm belief that if this was
implemented a lot more people would probably opt out. Oh well, the fines will
hopefully start rolling out and maybe we get less asshole design.

~~~
mrep
> It is clearly stated in GDPR that it should be as easy to opt-out as opt-in

Can you point to which article of the 99 [0] that you are referring to because
I have heard this claim multiple times and yet I cannot seem to find it on my
own.

[0]: [https://gdpr-info.eu/](https://gdpr-info.eu/)

~~~
kruczek
The most "clearly stated" is I think the following:

> Art. 7, paragraph 3: "It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent."

Although it sounds like this is about withdrawing previously given consent,
not rejecting the request for consent at all.

> Recital 32: "If the data subject’s consent is to be given following a
> request by electronic means, the request must be clear, concise and not
> unnecessarily disruptive to the use of the service for which it is
> provided."

Perhaps it could be argued that having to click through multiple menus to
reject the request is not concise and is disruptive to the use of the service?

> Recital 42: "In accordance with Council Directive 93/13/EEC a declaration of
> consent pre-formulated by the controller should be provided in an
> intelligible and easily accessible form, using clear and plain language and
> it should not contain unfair terms."

Again, I'd argue that having to click through multiple menus isn't exactly
"easily accessible form".

------
patmcguire
> In April all of the top ten companies tracked at least 50% of pages, whereas
> in July only five companies do so.

Looks like the people who predicted this would lead to consolidation among the
biggest players were correct.

~~~
sharkmerry
How does that imply that? It seems to imply that less companies are tracking
not that they combined.

------
lmilcin
... at the cost of an additional button you have to press every time you have
to visit any website.

I get it... it takes few iterations to get it right... hopefully they get it
right sometime in the future, right?

~~~
tjoff
If by "they" you mean the webmasters, I agree. Maybe by web 5.0 we have
started to respect the user.

~~~
umvi
Respect should flow both ways. Websites are user hostile, but users are also
website hostile. Users want to have their cake and eat it too. Users want
everything to be both free and ad free. I can't tell you how many friends I
have that use ad blockers in order to watch things like Crunchyroll ad-free...

~~~
greglindahl
When I was a kid, I was offended that my family members would go to the
bathroom while the TV was showing ads. Totally unfair to the TV network...
they should have watched all of the ads!

~~~
umvi
I get what you are saying, but I kind of disagree.

When an advertiser purchases a slot in some broadcast, they are doing so with
the guarantee that their advertisement will play during that slot; they do not
have the guarantee that the end user's eyeballs will actually be watching the
ad.

However, ad skipping and ad blocking technology is making it so advertisers
aren't even guaranteed their ad will even play during the slot they purchased
- it may be programmatically skipped. If the ad is skipped, _someone_ loses
out, and it's (usually) not the end user.

Basically what I'm saying is that if you are watching Crunchyroll episodes
with an ad blocker enabled, you are (basically) stealing from either
Crunchyroll or the ad network (whoever is swallowing the stolen bandwidth
costs). The honest thing to do would be to subscribe to Crunchyroll premium if
you don't want to watch the ads.

I know not every site has this option, and I know there's an argument to be
made against double dipping (i.e. paying once for cable, and a second time by
watching ads on said cable), but for things like YouTube and Crunchyroll which
have official ad-free variants, it would be dishonest in my opinion to use the
ad supported version with an ad blocker.

Just my opinion, though.

