> While the cookie initiative has a good intention, I really don't think it's actually useful. Large amounts of the population(willing to bet north of 99%) have

> While the cookie initiative has a good intention, I really don't think it's actually useful. Large amounts of the population(willing to bet north of 99%) have absolutely 0 clue what cookies are in the context of the web or what they imply. Most people just click on "accept", just to get it out of their way. And I do too often enough, granted I know the site I'm on. But isn't that exactly an argument for why it is useful? If a site puts this big banner in your way, and you have to get rid of it to navigate, and if it seems consequence-free, then you'll do it. This is just saying that there has to be a way past the cookie-consent wall, so that the decision is no longer between "agree to this apparently without consequences" or "no content", but among "agree to this apparently without consequences" or "decline". Maybe lots of people will still choose the former, but at least you get a meaningful alternative, and that'll reduce the people allowing cookies (and, more importantly, give an option to those who do know about what they're agreeing to).