You don’t need cookies or to force someone to decline to sign up for your newsletter to do those things.
“Need” here is overdetermined. From a primordial perspective I suppose you could argue the design “force[s]” users to take certain actions, but it’s not like there isn’t a substantive and more intellectually honest take, which is that the modals are annoying but unextraordinary and in-line with standard legal expectations and design practices.
If you're referring to GDPR and ePrivacy, then there's literally no reason to show that consent form for cookies that are strictly required for the functioning of your site.
> and in-line with standard legal expectations and design practices.
False on the legal expectation.
Sadly true on the design practices.
This is why I guard against presumption: so I don’t make references to forms of European legislation (GDPR and ePrivacy) as if they are the singular authorities governing internet privacy law, or that legal expectations are formulated exclusively through civil law.
You’re out of your depth here.
> You’re out of your depth here.
Don't be a vague asshole. If you want to talk about real laws, don't make people play guessing games, especially when you're excusing these sites' bad behavior. If you're basing your argument on theoretical laws, then it's not the other person that's out of their depth.
You may call it “playing guessing games,” but to those with domain-specific knowledge, glaring errors with respect to fundamental legal concepts are obvious and indicates a lack of expertise (e.g. here, not understanding the consequences of the jurisdiction of their named laws to the soundness of their argument) and a possible violation of the law (though the present situation does not rise to that level).
Calling out false expertise is part of the self-regulating nature of the professions, even if doing so can be reasonably called “be[ing] a… asshole.” I think it’s worse to mislead people.
> not understanding the consequences of the jurisdiction
It was your third chance to name which particular laws and jurisdictions you allude to. And it was the third time you didn't take it. So, I presume, you have no idea what you're talking about.
> I think it’s worse to mislead people.
That's exactly what you're doing.
Also recall, the jurisdiction you’re demanding was mentioned in my very first response to you: Europe.
What exactly is it that you’re trying to argue at this point?
Yes, you could. No, you didn't.
> Also recall, the jurisdiction you’re demanding was mentioned in my very first response to you: Europe.
This is what you said: " I guard against presumption: so I don’t make references to forms of European legislation"
So no, you didn't make references to Europe, and you continued to vaguely describe some vague unknown jurisdictions.
> What exactly is it that you’re trying to argue at this point?
That's a question to you, really. I've said my piece here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31774633
You could, of course, respond by pointing out legal frameworks or laws where the discussed cookie banner is actually required. And yet, here we are, in a pointless thread where you've pointed out none.