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

[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.

[srazkvt@tech.lgbt]

@mike @jokeyrhyme when the deny all is behind a 5€ per month subscription

[nonya_bidniss@infosec.exchange]

@mike Been doing it since the day I first encountered it

[cvtsi2sd@hachyderm.io]

@mike Same, but if I'm really interested and there's no easy way to reject all I open the page in an anonymous window.

[yacc143@mastodon.social]

@gim @mike @jokeyrhyme That's another try to be US-Bigtech friendly by the politicians/EU commission.
The problem the runway for that is getting shorter and shorter. The last time (In the never ending Schrems Saga) the ECJ bound the GDPR privacy rights literally directly to the Charter, so bending the GDPR to weaken privacy literally would require EU Treaty changes.
So the whole thing the EU Commission is planning stands on wooden feet, but it will buy the "IT industry" a couple of months/years.

[jezcaudle@infosec.exchange]

@mike @dangillmor Same.

[horstworst@social.tchncs.de]

@mike
me too

[bbaugh@infosec.exchange]

@mike I do that too!
Relatedly I have been getting completely blocked pages because I use an ad blocker and am redirected to a page that says I need to allow them to serve content I don’t want. I don’t follow that either.

[mkoek@mastodon.nl]

@jokeyrhyme @mike In the EU, the ones where you have to deselect a gazillion cookies are actually malicious non-compliance, they have been found illegal. Unfortunately there isn’t much enforcement, so it mostly continues.

[duke_of_germany@mastodon.gamedev.place]

I do exactly the same. I refined this just a little bit recently:
When I am *really* curious about the article, I turn on the browser‘s „reader“ mode to see if it then reveals the full article. If it still does not work, I close the tab.
@mike @onepict

[hszakher@mastodon.world]

@mike I give it another chance via archive.is link. Otherwise, I don't bother with the article

[b3lt3r@mastodon.b3lt3r.com]

@mike #metoo

[frieke72@mastodon.social]

@mike ‍️ same