Over the last few weeks I have noticed a behaviour in myself.

[bro666@social.tchncs.de]

@mike

I do this too.

I also avoid visiting certain platforms too, like Substack, regardless of how interesting the article may seem.

[oilheap@infosec.exchange]

@glynmoody @mike I imagine most average people just click "Accept all" without a second thought because it gets them to the content. "Informed consent" this is not!

[friedemannlietz@mastodon.social]

@mike same

[glynmoody@mastodon.social]

@oilheap indeed @mike

[steeph@todon.eu]

@mike @glynmoody They might. It's an easy statistic to create. But us closing the site is the point if such popups, isn't it? We would create traffic that doesn't produce sellable data. Sure, it's a black and white view on the issue. But in general that is why there is no obvious deny all option.

[steveclough@metalhead.club]

@mike Very much what I do. If I cannot say "no" with a click, I will tend not to bother.

I even do this at work - where I might be searching for something quite specific, but I am still not accepting sites which are desperate for me to let them know who I am.

[gim@lou.lt]

@mike @jokeyrhyme there were mentions/news last year, that things (regulation-wise) will be simplified - for end-users that is I'm not sure where/how that ended though.

Btw, I'm aware that's not the solution to malicious compliance, but Consent-o-matic add-on usually does the job well.

[inmod@mastodon.social]

@mike you still get cookies pop-ups?

[soveryoleary@mstdn.social]

@mike Same. except first I try to bypass it entirely by hitting “Show Reader” button if available

[pthane@toot.wales]

@mike
Yup, me too.
Also wtf is 'legitimate interest'?

[bitchboss@marcella.masto.host]

@mike

Yes. If there is no button labelled ‘Reject All’ or ‘Accept Only Necessary,’ then it's goodbye.

[osma@mas.to]

They're not losing business. Their business is to sell tracked impressions to surveillance vendors, so deny all and a lost reader are both worth nothing.
@mike @glynmoody

[dziadekmick@mstdn.social]

@mike

Me too.

And I turn back on sites which give me the MAYBE LATER option instead of NO.

[his_boy_sherman@mstdn.social]

@mike yes, this is what I do. At first I stressed over the “should I or shouldn’t I” decisions, then just decided I didn’t need that in my life, and that turned out to be correct

[oneinthevillage@mstdn.ca]

@mike

I will not view a site if reject all isn’t available

[yacc143@mastodon.social]

@mike More or less, I'm not religious about it, but yes, I'm also noticing a strong "I don't bother attitude".

[dalias@hachyderm.io]

@mike The worst slimy pattern is doing this with a complicated preferences panel that, when you finally click "save preferences", puts up a box saying there was an error saving preferences and kicks you back to the start. Instant nope. Breaking law, attempting plausible deniability, exploiting sunk cost fallacy.

[meznor@mstdn.social]

@mike I definitely do this (but I also go down their stupid UI-nightmare rabbit hole to see if I have options first, and usually it’s buried in there somewhere).

[lazyb0y@mastodon.social]

@mike
i admit too often im too curious and still do the extra clicks to get to the content and sometimes, which is also way too often, i also click „accept all“

the most important fact:

„we care about privacy“ is a lie if it’s coming in a cookie banner.

who really cares about privacy can do real necessary cookies without additional banner.
who does it anyway deserves no click at all - not reject all, not extra preferences settings, and least accept all

[karlauerbach@sfba.social]

@mike I also often skip websites that try to make me jump through privacy hoops.

If they don't honor my browser's signals for global privacy preference (as well as the older do-not-track) then F-'em.