'Is this really what we want? To continue chucking up cookie warnings to everyone and somehow expecting them to make an informed decision about the risks they present? 99% of people are going to click through them anyway (note: this is a purely fabricated figure based on the common-sense assumption that people will generally click through anything that gets in the way of perming the task they set out to complete in the first place).'

'if you're smart enough to actually understand what cookies are and be able to make an informed decision when prompted with a warning like TechCrunch's, then you're smart enough to know how to right click on a link and open it incognito. Or run an ad blocker. Or something like a Pi-hole.'

'I know what these are and you probably do too by virtue of being on this blog, but do you really think most people who have been conditioned to click through the warning that's sitting between them and the content they wish to read understand the difference between this and a cookie warning?'

'everyone clicks through cookie warnings anyway, if you read them you either can't understand what they're saying or the configuration of privacy settings is a nightmare, depending on where you are in the world you either don't get privacy or you don't get UX hell, if you understand the privacy risks then it's easy to open links incognito or use an ad blocker, you can still be tracked anyway and finally, the whole thing is just conditioning people to make bad security choices.'

Sign in to participate in the conversation

An open, family-friendly chat