From time to time, important news gets overshadowed by other headlines, even though it could have a profound impact on our (online) world. To most of us, few things are more bothersome than the dreaded cookie banners. On countless websites, you’re confronted with a pesky pop-up urging you to agree to something. You end up consenting without really knowing what it is. If you try to figure out what’s going on, you quickly get lost among the often hundreds of “partners” who want access to your personal data. Even if you do give your consent, it’s questionable whether you truly understand what you’re agreeing to.
I’m not a fan of being tracked so don’t get me wrong, but without the money earned with advertising the Internet will look very different and not only in a good way.
I disagree. The online advertising industry needs to shrink, and we should probably break up the monopolies.
Look at this chart:
Growth of advertising correlates with enshittification.
I 100% agree and totally get why I am being downvoted, but just disabling advertising or banning tracking cookies are not a magic fix to save the internet from the perspective of the companies that now show these ads. But I am definitely I favour of changes, the enshittication went way to far already. But there is more than big social media platforms is what I mean to say.
I agree with that!
Advertising predates tracking by millennia. We can have online advertising without tracking, and certainly without this orgy of sharing data between 4353 partners. But market alone won’t get us there, because whoever offers advertising without tracking and selling data will be at a huge disadvantage compared to the crooks who sell. Only regulatory action can help. So this small step should be celebrated.
but but but how are the corporations supposed to make money off of our data if they can’t harvest it? Think of the poor corporations!!
Random side note: how is Belgium to live in and what would it look like to live there right now? Asking for a friend.
Edit: thanks for al the information. I’ll move onto learning more about the country and it’s people’s history.
I think you can reap the benefits from just using a VPN and set the country to Belgium?
Depends on how many sites comply, most will likely block Belgian IP’s due to this.
Huh, according to the logs, the population of Belgium increased by ~10x, and most people seem to be moving to this area with loss lots of data centers. Checks out.
We have better access to healthcare than France, generally good work-life balance, access to education is cheap (1000 eur for one year at a good university ). People are welcoming but also reserved. It’s raining a lot and we spend a lot of time complaining about it.
It’s raining a lot and we spend a lot of time complaining about it.
Hey, that’s our brand!
Sincerely, a dude from Hamburg
I have friends who live there, and they report the same. They visited us for the first time here in London recently, and were quite shocked by the stark differences.
how is Belgium to live in and what would it look like to live there right now?
It’s literally between France, Germany and the Netherlands, I mean geographically yes but roughly culturally too. Arguably Brussels is a mix of all that and other cities again match where they are.
So… it’s a Western European country with good quality of life
despitethanks to having one of the very highest taxes rate. You don’t have to be a socialist to be here but if you want to become a rich entrepreneur it’s going to be challenging.Source : immigrated there from France ~10 years ago.
Edit: s/despite/thanks to/
it’s a Western European country with good quality of life despite having one of the very highest taxes rate.
“Despite”? Try, “because”
I think they’re actually right about this one, taxes tend to cover things that give you high standard of living more than quality of life.
Curious what the distinction between “standard of living” and “quality of life” here is… I’m sure there are subtle differences, but surely taxes contribute to both (which themselves are interrelated).
Actually they’re very well defined economic terms. Standard of living measures how well your basic needs as a member of a given society are filled by that sociey. Quality of life measures how nice your shit is.
Pretty simple.
So yes, taxes effect both, but standard of living more directly.
You’re right obviously, you dirty communist! /$
Post updated accordingly.
Expensive and gray.
Going down with the rest of Europe economically
And then the EU introduces the worst spying law in history.
This needs to be worldwide.
And… PURGE ALL USER INFORMATION!
I don’t care for those ‘but what about those people planning/planned crimes?’ The one thing I learned from the current Trump administration is that the information is so fucking ripe for abuse AND they don’t even catch enough actual crooks that letting a few legit bad people slip through isn’t going to bother me.
Love the sentiment, curious about implementation.
Simple:
- make “no” the default answer when asking
- massive fine, in the order of 50% of total revenue, the first time you get caught to be paid before the eventual appeal, which if lost raise the fine by 50%. If not paid in 90 days, the CEO goes to jail until it is paid. From now on for 2 years the company must show that it follow the law.
- mandatory jail time for the CEO the second time you get caught with no option for parole or any other alternative sentence like a fine or whatever.
Or any other solution where the eventual punishment cannot be considered just business cost.
I know, almost impossible… :-(
- Please. Need this. Thanks
- Would this work in any court of law?
- I’ve learned recently while the CEO has a lot of control, they are not ultimately in control. The executive board is. Everyone on the board should be jailed and barred from starting a business for 25 years or the length of the sentence, whichever is greater
- Yes, a law can define whatever fine you want and timeframe to pay.
- Fine, not the CEO but the executive board members, it does not matter. The point is that who has the control and the benefit should also carry the risk. You get big buck from the company ? Fine, if your company do something illegal you pay the price.
Sounds like a plan from someone that has never been lobbied by the advertising industry. Many billions are at stake here. Not many governments can withstand the kind of lobby power this money can buy.
Would be great to see more crackdown on this though. Random companies are collecting tons of data on people via default opt-in methods.
The crazy thing (to me) is that governments can still get all of those billions without the undue influence. Instead of bribes, they can charge fines, taxes, fees for regulatory inspections, etc. When you write the law, you don’t have to just shrug when things are obviously broken.
Not crazy (to me). Charging taxes doesn’t make you likely to get re-elected. Taking money from lobbyists and giving them what they want does.
If the lobbyists have money to pay bribes, then they have money to pay taxes. It doesn’t seem like a stretch for the government to get that money without all of the coercion.
I agree with the sentiment, but that harsh of an enforcement method is overkill, the penalty should be a fine, not jail time, because otherwise it could be abused to an insane extent, and 50% will immediately bankrupt pretty much any company immediately, most well structured businesses could probably sustain fines on the order of 40%, I do like your inclusion of percentage based penalties, but realistically with 2-5% fines, any ceo will be removed from their company after the first or second offense, and the company will bankrupt if they sustain more than a couple fines in a year.
Edit: after doing the math on some actual companies, I believe 2-5% is too low, realistically 5% is the lowest that would actually change business dealings, and 25% will make a company just barely dip into the red. For this reason I think 5-15% should be the goal post.
If the penalty is a fine, then for most it’s just the cost of doing business. I agree that the 50% is probably a bit harsh, but executive boards and CEOs must start facing real consequences like jail time or painful fines that make it impossible to just ignore it - so it has to be based of a percentage of revenue at least in the double digits, not profits or a fixed amount.
Which is the whole point of the enormous fine and jail time.
If the penalty could be treated as a simple “cost of doing busineess” there is no incentive to stay in the right because if you ever got caught it is not that big problem.And I don’t see a problem if a company doing illegal things to survive will bankrupt once they get caught while doing it.
but realistically with 2-5% fines, any ceo will be removed from their company after the first or second offense, and the company will bankrupt if they sustain more than a couple fines in a year.
I don’t think so. It’s not that the massive fines committed to Apple and Google make them change the CEO.
I will preface this comment with a change in my opinion when it comes to semantics, I think my 2-5% range is too low after researching a bit more, I would be much more in favor of 5-15%, but the remainder of my point stays the same.
I don’t think so. It’s not that the massive fines committed to Apple and Google make them change the CEO.>
Which fines are you referring to, in my opinion the biggest problem that we currently have is that there are realistically no penalties for breaking the law.
Just doing a quick Google search, apple made about 400b in revenue last year, and apple just had a 2b fine from an antitrust lawsuit. Applying the 5% fine, that 2b would become 20b which equates to 20% of their annual earnings for that year.
If we applied the 50% penalty that started this thread, that becomes a fine of 200b which means, using the apple example, that the company loses 100b when they get down to their earnings. This is the reason why I feel like 50% is too much, if one privacy court case in one country is enough to bankrupt a company, no company would ever attempt to provide a service that is remotely adjacent to that law: in my mind, some of the services that would cease to exist would include search engines, payment processors, and email newsletters.
All in all, I think that the penalty should be a fine, because realistically this is a civil matter, and I am not a big proponent of jail time without a criminal conviction. I do agree that the fixed amount fines are too damaging to smaller firms and a slap on the wrist for large ones, so after looking at the numbers for apple and Google 5% equates to a noticeable hit to the companies bottom line, and 15% is a little bit short of making the company entirely unprofitable; this means that the fines range from hurting or stunting the growth of a company for one privacy related issue in whatever country is enforcing this law. This also means that on the high end bankruptcy will loom over any company that has 2-3 privacy issues in any given year.
Addendum: if you were wondering, about the numbers for 15%, the earnings in 2024 for apple would be 35b or a 37% decrease, and for Google it is 47.5b or a 48% decrease.
Then maybe dont do anything illegal???
You have to activly track someone, it doesnt just “happen”.
IIRC there were hospitals in the US that violated HIPAA by accident because they used the Meta Pixel to aggregate useful information on their website, but which was also sending more information than they knew to Meta. So, it does “just happen”.
Meta is doing it knowingly though so….
Only an absolute brain dead moron would think using a Meta tracking pixel wasn’t going to exfiltrate information to Meta. Thats the level of negligence with important data that should be punished. If people are scared to collect data, then the correct goal has been achieved.
They didn’t think that using Meta pixel would send absolutely no information to Meta. They were on board with that. They just didn’t think it would send sensitive medical information to Meta.
While I do agree with you, sometimes you have to wonder, “Do these places have anyone in IT at all?”
IT experts do nothing except reduce profit margins. You wouldn’t want a lower profit margin, would you?
And a few fines to popular websites and news reports about it and people will start to learn what the law is and don’t implement meta haphazardly. “just happen” will quickly turn to “rarely happens” once it becomes enforced.
If these laws came into place, you would ofc create a grace periode, resulting in løser punishments.
It will give corps a window to really check wtf they are doing, and take it seriously.
“Oops, we are tracking children” is something that has happened many times in recent years, IIRC. Probally still intentional.
I know the human tendency is to think in extremes, but I would prefer to have a system that is as balanced as possible, or at least one that affords adecuate protections to all parties involved.
The issue I have with the “just don’t do anything illegal” argument is that depending on how the illegality is defined, it can be used as a tool for bad actors. Take for instance something like the afformentioned 50% penalty with mandatory jail time for repeat offenders, if I decided that jim’s furniture store shouldn’t exist anymore, I would only need to find some tiny thing wrong with their data handling, like for instance, assuming this specific hole exists, that they asked for contact info before it’s needed for purchase verification. Now they may lose on this minor infraction, and pretty much any small business will die a horrible death without half their revenue. Meanwhile the mega corps will likely find some workaround do to their high priced lawyers, but even assuming we make a rock solid definition, they still just cycle the ceo immediately, because no one will want to be an active ceo when they are one court case from jail.
The issue I have with the “just don’t do anything illegal” argument is that depending on how the illegality is defined, it can be used as a tool for bad actors. Take for instance something like the afformentioned 50% penalty with mandatory jail time for repeat offenders, if I decided that jim’s furniture store shouldn’t exist anymore, I would only need to find some tiny thing wrong with their data handling, like for instance, assuming this specific hole exists, that they asked for contact info before it’s needed for purchase verification. Now they may lose on this minor infraction, and pretty much any small business will die a horrible death without half their revenue.
Got your point, unluckyly every law can be abused if not based on hard evidences (and even in this case it is not bulletproof). And of course it is not automatic so a due process is obviously necessary where you need to prove that Jim is in the wrong.
But we already have similar laws here and they seems to work pretty well.Meanwhile the mega corps will likely find some workaround do to their high priced lawyers, but even assuming we make a rock solid definition, they still just cycle the ceo immediately,
For the mega corps the real threat is the fine, the mandatory jail time for the CEO (or the board members or whoever is in real control) is only a way to have the people who need to control to make their work. A company, big as you want, is not some abstract entity where things where done by some abstract figure. In the end there is always someone who approve everything and the CEO (or the board) is the ultimately responsible.
Just imagine how much control the shareholdes would make on Zuckemberg if they know they are one lost court case from losing half their money.
And no, rotating the CEO is useless, criminal charges are personal so if you as CEO make something illegal and then quit, your charges do not trasfer to the new CEO.
because no one will want to be an active ceo when they are one court case from jail.
Then he will check what the company do. He want the big buck, it is right it also has the accountabilty.
- ‘No’ is already the default, that’s why you get the banners, to trick you into opting in. There are a couple of filters that you can enable in uBlock Origin to get rid of (most of) the banners.
Also install consent-o-matic, it handles the popup of most popular websites by default without tweaking ubo.
This is a win for everyone in Europe, and possibly beyond. [Emphasis mine.] Companies may no longer secretly track your behavior based on “consent” given under pressure. Hopefully, this will not only put an end to these dubious practices, but also to those pesky cookie banners.
But we’re not there yet. Regulators have ruled the system illegal, and the court’s ruling has now confirmed it. Still, the companies making billions from this model won’t stop on their own. That’s why European regulators must now truly step up: enforce the law and make sure these companies actually comply.
Regulators try not to get compromised by lobbyists when billions of dollars are at stake.
I sincerely wish you good luck.
Big corpos aren’t going to comply and pay a small fine instead. https://proton.me/tech-fines-tracker
We need the corporate death penalty.
Or at least take 100% of their revenue (not profit) until they comply.
I’m sorry but my dream has always been becoming a corrupt politician
Even if idiots with enough money stay unleashed this is great news. One step at a time. Thanks for sharing!
Based
wow i didn’t know belgium was based. I guess i was wrong when i thought they peaked with french fries
It’s a fairytale town, isn’t it? How’s a fairytale town not somebody’s fucking thing?How can all those canals and bridges and cobbled streets and those churches, all that beautiful fucking fairytale stuff, how can that not be somebody’s fucking thing, eh?
Wait, wait. Better quote.
What’s Belgium famous for? Chocolates and child abuse, and they only invented the chocolates to get to the kids.
Idk, their waffles and chocolates are pretty good too.
And beer
Belgian craft beers are top notch.
Delirium Tremens at -12 Celsius 😍
still pretty tough to beat the fries. I’d say this is a close second.
Yeah I’ll need the detailed judgment of this one before considering it a massive win. Consent has always been something that needs to be done willingly and freely. The issue is forcing the whole industry to give a shit about the principle. Maybe IAB will have to shift its practices but I haven’t had any panicked calls yet so I assume this isn’t systemic.
Phew!
Someone from a developing nation told me that hating advertising is absolutely a luxury of only wealthy nations. Without ad supported formats LATAM, EMEA, and APAC would have far less access to entertainment and information. It made me reexamine how much of my thoughts on this are privileged.
You already get the benefit of lower prices for digital products that have the same production cost regarless of where it is sold. I understand that your wages are lower, but I can not like paying a lot more for the same services/
Generally, you wouldn’t see things like Netflix and HBO enter Latin America without ad supported versions.
It’s not about advertising. It’s about spying on our online lives. Not the same thing.
Yeah but that’s not what I was talking about. I too do all the necessary fiddling to try and reduce the amount of fingerprinting an advertiser can do to me. That said, I’m a social butterfly so I have every kind of major social media and chat app because I have to.
Then what are you talking about? I didn’t downvote your post, but probably like people who did, I have trouble understanding your point. Everyone online - privileged and underprivileged alike - is under omnipresent surveillance of countless actors. Until very recently this was completely unregulated. Information about our behavior, interests, opinions, relations, health, anxieties and dumb shit we post in moments of confusion, is gathered, sold, recombined and resold. The rich and powerful are doing it in hope of gaining ability to predict and change our behavior - i.e. gain more power over us. So just because you are more privileged then some, you should not care? Or not appreciate that something good, even if small and insufficient, happened about this awful situation?
As if there’s no other way.
This sounds like a far-fetched excuse, advertising is ugly, obnoxious and poisonous.
It has zero qualities.At the moment there’s no other way that makes sense for the companies looking at these regions. The reality is that the infrastructure to deliver digital goods is that it costs the same no matter where you’re delivering those goods to. So if people in that region have such a weak currency, they’re paying you one 100 th of what say France is paying for something then offering the service to them maybe an unprofitable venture overall. That said, I’m not a businessman because I fucking hate this kind of shit, but the guy’s comment really made me stop and observe my own bias.
Cookies are old news. What about browser fingerprinting which can track you across websites? https://www.amiunique.org/
There’s basically no easy way to safeguard against it without making browsing nearly unusable.
Yes! You are unique among the 3874720 fingerprints in our entire dataset.
If the website says that I’m unique in green font, it’s actually bad and should be red, isn’t it ?
Happened to me, too. Fuck!
Yes.
But why unusable, why does a browser have to leak language, window size, time, extensions? Can’t those be spoofed?
A lot of those things are also required to render a webpage correctly.
But isn’t most of that client-side processing? Can’t I request a vanilla generic page and once it is in my browser to process it to shape it into the window size and extensions I want? Even if it is an adblocker: serve me the ad, I’ll block it internally. But I suppose that for dynamic pages with js requests this would become hard to do.
Yeah it’s Javascript that’s the issue that can just take all this data in the client and send it wherever. And that’s exactly what’s happening.
What’s the solution?
I’m not sure a technical solution is feasible, other than dns-blocking these trackers. I suppose lawmakers need to spring into action to make this shit illegal.
You could probably set a cap on how many different fingerprinty attributes a script is allowed to grab before requesting permission from the user.
That is indeed the solution.
A technical solution won’t cut it. Here’s a very convoluted example: the <p> tag allows you to send the text “buy illegal drugs here” to kids!! Omg!!! What to do? Remove the <p> tag? Obviously not. You ban the practice.
You will have your tor-connected 1024x768 anonymous window and you will like it!
deleted by creator
tor-connected
You are unique!
oh fuck i’m unique on every browser 😨
GDPR is regarding personal data, which includes cookies as well as any other fingerprinting. Even though browser fingerprinting does not persist any data on a device itself, explicit consent must be gathered before it’s used for processing (i.e. tracking) purposes.
Tor Browser in normal mode is quite usable though, you just can’t use extensions and you need to start a new session whenever you use other websites so they can’t track you via cookies. Mullvad Browser is quite similar too.
