Every Fucking Website (2020)
A parody site that mimics a modern “every website” sparks a broader critique of today’s web: autoplaying videos, popups, chat widgets, app nags, scroll hijacking, layout shifts, and bloated JavaScript that make basic browsing frustrating. Commenters argue that much of this stems from ad-driven tracking and analytics, with GDPR and the EU’s ePrivacy rules leading to ubiquitous cookie banners that are often implemented as dark patterns rather than genuine consent mechanisms. Some see this as regulatory failure, while others insist the laws are sound and that companies could easily avoid banners and intrusive UX by collecting less data and prioritizing simple, fast, content-focused pages.
Overall reaction to the parody site
- Many commenters say the spoof still feels “too usable” compared to today’s web.
- Others call it depressingly accurate, “modern art,” or good boilerplate for real marketing sites.
- Several note it already feels dated vs. 2024–2026 trends (AI slop, neon-on-dark themes, more scroll hijacking).
Common modern web annoyances
- Cookie banners, especially those requiring many clicks to reject tracking or listing hundreds of “partners.”
- Autoplay video (often with sound), floating video thumbnails, notification prompts, location requests, “better in the app” overlays.
- Layout shifts from late-loading ads or elements that cause mis-clicks; hijacked scroll, back button, keyboard shortcuts, and search focus.
- Heavy JS, large hero images or background videos, skeleton loaders, endless spinners, slow performance, multi-domain trackers.
- Popups: email capture, “someone just bought X,” social proof, subscription upsells, and chat bubbles.
- Recipe, news, and social/job sites called out as some of the worst.
Cookie banners, GDPR, and EU policy
- Strong disagreement over who’s to blame: EU policy vs. companies’ “malicious compliance.”
- One side: ePrivacy/GDPR are flawed; forcing constant consent dialogs is absurd and predictable regulatory failure.
- Other side: laws don’t mandate banners per se; only tracking/non-essential cookies require consent. Sites could avoid banners by not tracking, or by using exempt “strictly necessary”/functional cookies.
- Debate over details: “strictly necessary” vs. preferences cookies, role of the ePrivacy Directive, and how guidance like WP29 opinions apply.
- Some argue enforcement is weak and many banners are themselves non-compliant or dark patterns.
Business incentives & ethics
- Dark patterns and annoying UX persist because they measurably increase signups, conversions, and data collection.
- Commenters wrestle with the morality of using tactics that “work” vs. respecting users.
- Some blame management/MBAs and ad-tech incentives; others say devs who implement this still share responsibility.
Coping strategies & alternatives
- Suggestions: reader mode, aggressive ad/cookie blockers, “kill sticky” userscripts, alt frontends (e.g., old-style or proxy views), always-request-desktop modes.
- Praise for simple, fast, mostly-static sites (HN, small personal sites, “small web,” suckless-style pages) and nostalgia for pre-enshittification web.