3 ms·
But if the site relies on cookies and localStorage and cannot work without it, "no" option is equivalent of "ban". And it's their computer that allows the usag
by ezoe 8y ago
But if the site relies on cookies and localStorage and cannot work without it, "no" option is equivalent of "ban".
And it's their computer that allows the usage of cookies and localstorage. All modern web browsers has an option to disable them. It's technically stupid.
- tomp 8y agoNah, the equivalent is "using the website with degraded experience", not "can't read the article, we'll redirect you to the home page instead".
- reitanqild 8y ago> But if the site relies on cookies and localStorage and cannot work without it, "no" option is equivalent of "ban". This - unless I misread it - is flat out wrong for most of the cookie warnings I see. There's no valid reason for a news site to need cookies or similar except for logins. It can be proved easily by wiping cookies and verifying the site still works.