Asklemmy

43856 readers

2267 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Cookie wall: what is legitimate interest about (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Papanca@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Many websites have a - huge- part in their cookie wall, called 'legitimate interest'. I never allow them and i wonder; is this just a loophole to be able to force certain cookies on us anyway?

I can't imagine it is harmless, but i never hear anyone discussing these type of cookies.

EDIT: Everyone, thank you so much for taking the effort to answer. These replies were very helpful and often quite detailed. I've read them all and it certainly gives food for thought. I also read that EU page, which is indeed not really clarifying much.

I agree that we need to do as much as possible to block all these invaders of our privacy, though it is ridiculous that we have to make so much effort to protect ourselves. And i know many people around me, who just let it all happen and are sometimes not even aware of such things as trackers. And honestly, they shouldn't have to be aware, it is infuriating that these things are either allowed, or those companies taking the - small - risk to get away with it, because most people won't bother with law suits and what not, certainly not when so many websites have these shady practices...

Again, thank you; i'm glad i asked :-)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] towerful@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

I was trying to say that, where an ad company's legitimate interests are likely at odds with a user using another website.

Legitimate interests to do something sensible (like fraud/ddos protection) is easy to justify.
Legitimate interests for ad tracking is a lot harder to justify, so it's easier and less risky to just ask for consent.

But yeh, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. At the moment, at least.
It's only the big prolific companies that are going to have difficulty. Or if a particularly knowledgeable person (or lawyer) has a bone to pick with a company.