4 ms·
The case you describe for Wikipedia would be a functional cookie, not subject to a banner, while Facebook would use a tracking cookie, subject to a banner. I t
by ajnin 6y ago
The case you describe for Wikipedia would be a functional cookie, not subject to a banner, while Facebook would use a tracking cookie, subject to a banner.
I think that the fact that a lot of websites nag you with endless lists of cookie consent checkboxes, even for functional cookies, is not entirely innocent, and contributes to the idea that cookie notices are terribly annoying and pointless.
- lkbm 6y agoThanks for clarifying. You may be right -- again, I'm far from an expert. The distinction I've seen is essential vs. nonessential. Remembering that I dismissed that banner seems more like non-essential to me. Seems more along the lines of saving my preferred font size. That said, the sources I'm finding about this are maaaybe not the most reliable. Is there a difference between remembering this "for the current session" vs. "for several weeks"? (The idea of a session is awfully vague given how HTTP works, but seems like one we use anyway.) > I think that the fact that a lot of websites nag you with endless lists of cookie consent checkboxes, even for functional cookies, is not entirely innocent, and contributes to the idea that cookie notices are terribly annoying and pointless. One thing I can add is that when I searched for info about the law, I got a bunch of results from cookieyes.com, which told me 1. that I need a cookie banner for any cookies at all and 2. we'll provide you with a cookie banner if you pay us. So there's definitely some incentives to push unnecessary cookie banners going on. :-)