Ask HN: Do you think cookie prompts on websites are a bad thing? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Do you think cookie prompts on websites are a bad thing?

11 pointsandreyk21 comments

It's very common for people to complain about how many things clutter the screen in 'the modern web', and this has definitely comes up on HN. People seem to strongly dislike cookie prompts, and I wonder what people on here think. I don't mind them for the following reasons:

For one, it's a tiny point of friction - if the site is optimized it shows up quickly and you can click OK in a second. Are we so sensitive to minor inconvenience? I thought about this just now while opening a site and having to accept cookies, and it being really quick if slightly annoying.

Second, is this not a good inconvenience to have? Another common complaint about the modern web is the lack of privacy and sites being heavy with reliance on JS and just not being optimized. Having these toggles means the site presumably has to work without cookies, which seems good?

If nothing else, it's a reminder about data about you being stored, and isn't the current paradigm of near zero privacy the results of us just not thinking about privacy and giving it up for the sake of convenience?

Lastly, the laws that require this represent protection of our data. While cookies may not be a huge deal, I do think acceptance of such measures could enable further requirements about what data is collected and can be deleted. Is this too optimistic?

If you hate them / think they suck, could you comment on the above points?

They are ridiculous. They serve literally no consumer purpose, they are just a silly compliance measure.

What I'd much rather see is a clear way to set cookie preferences in the browser. It still wouldn't be perfect because it would require some knowledge, and no doubt some lame websites would beg you to enable cookies, but it's a much more reasonable solution than the nonsense we have now.

Like the "do not track" header?

Yes, but legally enforced.

The internet was more fun without those horrible popups. They suck the joy out of browsing. And they degrade the mobile browsing experience when the cookie wall is badly implemented and I can’t tap accept or decline.

Worse, instead of implementing the cookie wall some sites outside the EU just turned off access to EU citizens. A crack in the worldwide web. Not so worldwide anymore.

Clicking on a cookie prompt would be admitting it will do something useful, which is a clear falsehood. The problem is "some cookies are being abused for tracking", and the purported solution is to shove in your face a message claiming "this uses cookies, click here to acknowledge the fact because the real problem is that you're an ignorant who does not know this uses cookies". It's not just useless, it's insulting and patronizing.

Cookies are a thing that should be solved client-side.... so basically, no third party cookies, cookie jars per domain, and default wipe-on-tab(window)-close + a button to enable cookies per domain somwhere, for the logins to work.

I am generally positive to EU's GPDR framework, and I was initially positive to the Cookie consent law (EPD) when it was first proposed - as I was hoping that websites would gradually retire cookies rather than inconvenience users.

The major problem as I see it, is that the EPD the way websites implement it, has in fact made it worse for those who set their browsers to refuse cookies. (As the consent dialog will pop every time you visit, because there is no way for them to store your setting of opt-in/opt-out.

So now there needs to be an (non EPD covered) API for websites to check if they're allowed to set cookies, if cookies are not allowed by the client then there is no need for a consent dialog.

What annoys me..

taking up the screen space on load is not great when I am looking for a fast answer.. but I am okay with it being there for how important it could be.

The lack of standardization for what happens if you click more info or settings or whatever... that's annoying.. sometimes all the things are deselected already, sometimes not.. sometimes you have to scroll to see what's checked and what's not - and you have to read because it may be in a different order or wording than the others..

I often wonder if I wasted time by clicking more info - like - did the site already have it set for required only - all others unchecked? (highly unlikely)

Also - this is not the only tracking thing - so it's a wasteful false sense of security - all the third party assets being loaded are tracking and selling my privacy regardless of cookies.

It's also really bad, because some people amy believe they are private / annonymous if they click and select to stop tracking cookies.. well you are not.. and just like incognito mode (which still tracks you) - and just like setting 'do not track' - some people in the world may get a false sense of privacy and do things they may not if they understood ip addy stuff, browser fingerprinting, ISPs selling your stuff - third party assets and all that.

So it's good - but then it's bad, and then it's worse, imho.

we should have browser extension or settings that say "my cookie preference is: X ooo " and sites respect that and set to that.. and I'm fine with a reminder popup and ask if you can leave more cookie crumbs to support X Y or Z -

a few random thought I have when running into these things.

If I genuinly feel a website is asking me for my consent on which data is stored for what reasonable purpose I have nothing against these banners/modals/etc.

This is however rarely the case. Most sites just add a cookie banner because they think this is mandatory now, the purposes for which they collect my data are still unclear and denying the usage is still often hidden behind dark patterns.

If you are only using functional cookies you should by my judgment (correct me if I am wrong) not need any cookie banner (of course a privacy notice is still needed). Or phrased differently: If you don't collect personal data you should not need to ask for consent.

So for those who really hate these banners: The solution is not to collect personal data of your users.

Cookie overlays are absolutely horrible, easily among the worst UX developments to be adopted en mass across the web.

They represent to me a major reversal in user perception of the web as a platform vs native/proprietary app stores, which in contrast seem to only get easier/remove friction over time.

When those rolled out, almost every site virtually overnight became objectively worse experiences. Nobody asked for it. And nobody benefits, except maybe app stores, as people find more reasons to distrust the web and its increasing lack of usability.

Just overall an absolute embarrassment to be associated with as a web developer, and something I would like to see abolished forever.

I think they are terrible.

Strange because anything else with a browser built-in doesn't pester you about cookies, like a phone application. And those definitely deal with cookies.

It’d be a lot less annoying if there were simple ‘refuse’ button that would refuse everything, including all the ‘legitimate purpose’ cookies.

Why don't you just disable cookies in your browser by default?

Because then you can’t login. Those are not the cookies blocked by the ‘legitimate purpose’ switches, that’s just more tracking.

They’re only required if your site is dropping spyware or stealing user data, which you shouldn’t be doing anyway.

> Ask HN: Do you think cookie prompts on websites are a bad thing?

Yes. Storing data on my computer is also a very bad thing.

I would pay for a mobile browser that automatically removed/accepted them everywhere.

On firefox you can use uBlock Origin, if you activate the EastListCookies filter list it blocks consent banners as well.

Can't remember when I last had to click one of those away it's great.

Theoretically P3P Policy must be praised.

they are a bad thing, can you just not have them? thanks. Op in for those that love to be tracked and traced.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com