Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

20
  • 1
    If users paid even a nominal fee for use of access your demand would carry greater weight but we don't, instead we get to visit and be a member of over 70 sites for free. I suspect these tracking cookies are part and parcel of the game and if SE does not remove them despite causing concern and distrust, what leverage do "we" the users have? Commented Apr 9, 2022 at 3:15
  • 17
    The law @Mari-LouAСлаваУкраїні. It's illegal in the EU and UK to do what SO are doing without our explicit consent. Commented Apr 9, 2022 at 3:16
  • 25
    The cookies are not illegal, just their usage without consent. @Mari-LouAСлаваУкраїні They are classified by the powers that be in the EU as "not strictly necessary", which is all that's allowed under the current user agreement. That is, SO is breaking their own user agreement by using these cookies without consent - that's the illegal aspect. Goes to: Breach of contract, breach of privacy, breach of duty of care etc.. Commented Apr 9, 2022 at 3:24
  • 2
    @ARogueAnt. Interesting, I was ignorant of these facts. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. Commented Apr 9, 2022 at 3:40
  • 3
    Nit pick: While "over 70" is certainly technically correct, stackexchange.com/sites currently lists 178 sites. Commented Apr 9, 2022 at 16:49
  • 5
    as nice as it would be for SE to respect its users' privacy, history has shown they're incapable of doing so. You not getting an answer is just another nail in the coffin. As much as I hate saying this, use an ad blocker, and recommend everyone else to get one as well. It's not acceptable for this to be the alternative, for the record, but it seems that SE doesn't care about privacy, and likely never will. Accepting that and equipping ad blocks is probably the only leverage we have Commented Apr 9, 2022 at 17:33
  • 11
    ... or, of course, submit a complaint with a GDPR regulator or whatever the person in the EU that handles complaints is called, if you're ready to pull out the nuclear option (and know how). Commented Apr 9, 2022 at 17:57
  • 1
    @Zoe and then what? After 10 years of negotiations, SE will pay $1M to the EU? Nuclear bomb maybe, but set on the back of a turtle. ;) Commented Apr 10, 2022 at 7:55
  • 1
    @ZoestandswithUkraine I'm looking into the idea (speculatively, don't expect anything very soon). Commented Apr 11, 2022 at 14:09
  • 3
    @ShadowWizardSaysNoMoreWar A 1 million dollar fine is still a gigantic kick in the ass that won't please the shareholders. If you want change, then some times, when all options are exhausted, a financial hit does wonders. If the goal is to cripple SE's economy (which it isn't, or at least that isn't my intent), sure, 1 million might be a drop in the ocean, though I personally don't know much about SE's finances. But if the goal is to pressure them to respect privacy laws, it's likely efficient. 10 years is a bit overkill, though; it's a lot faster than that, even if it takes a few months. Commented Apr 11, 2022 at 14:16
  • 1
    @Zoe they were bought for billions of dollars, one million is less than a grain of sand. Commented Apr 11, 2022 at 14:43
  • 13
    @ShadowWizardSaysNoMoreWar I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by insisting that a complaint won't work. It's the same sort of argument to say "your vote won't make a difference when there are millions of voters so don't bother". Sometimes we do things because they are the right thing to do, not because we have the power to unilaterally change the world. If no-one cares enough to file a complaint, the people with the power to fix the problem might not think it's a significant issue. Commented Apr 11, 2022 at 14:57
  • 6
    @ShadowWizardSaysNoMoreWar Do you feel like that's constructive? Arguing with someone who is trying to do some good that their efforts are probably futile? It's not going to hurt anything and it's their time to waste. I am not trying to be mean or hyper-critical, but I think that it's really easy to propagate negativity when we're feeling a bit hopeless (even if it is for good reasons with everything going on today). Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 16:06
  • 2
    @ColleenV constructive? Perhaps. The goal is to prevent disappointment. I learned this the hard way over the years, so just trying to prevent the (mental) pain and frustration from others. Of course many people already well aware of this and won't get disappointed when their efforts are in vain, but some might read what I say, lower expectations, and save themselves frustration by doing so. I never intended for anyone to not perform the actions and sorry if this is seen this way. Commented Apr 13, 2022 at 6:56
  • 2
    @ShadowWizardSaysNoMoreWar A life lived attempting to avoid disappointment by lowering your expectations seems very sad to me. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I'd rather be disappointed or seen as foolish than constantly feel like the things I do to try to make things better probably aren't going to have any effect. Everyone is different though, and having realistic expectations is a good thing too. I know you were well-intentioned. I wasn't sure if you knew how negative your comments seemed to the wild-eyed optimists among us ;) Commented Apr 13, 2022 at 17:30