3 ms·
The first notification informes you about the cookies the website is using. You need to agree to the use of the cookies to continue. This is mandatory by europe
by Draken93 6y ago
The first notification informes you about the cookies the website is using. You need to agree to the use of the cookies to continue. This is mandatory by european law.
But I agree with you that the placement and the fact that the banner blocks the whole website is unconvenient.
The second notification tells you to turn your ad-blocker of or to watch a video instead.
- sildur 6y agoThe law doesn't say that the cookie banner has to cover the entire page. It doesn't say either that the button to reject the cookies must be hidden at the end of the form.
- Draken93 6y ago"But I agree with you that the placement and the fact that the banner blocks the whole website is unconvenient."
- jlokier 6y ago> You need to agree to the use of the cookies to continue. This is mandatory by european law. No, it is not mandatory by European law. The myth persists. The site can use essential cookies or no cookies just fine, with no banner required at all. Nothing. If they decide to use non-essential cookies, for example privacy-intrusion tracking cookies to follow your activity around the web for advertising, then they need to notify you of this tracking and obtain consent. You have a right to know, after all, and you might prefer to exercise your rights by declining consent. But nothing requires it to be a large banner, and nothing requires the "reject all" button to be difficult to find.
- Draken93 6y agoI know, I should have clarified that. But to be honest, most newspapers use more then the essential tokens. As I wrote, I find the blocking of the website and the placement of the banner unconvinient. I am also convinced that it should be mandatory to have a "essential cookies only" button. I just wanted to explain what the banner is for, as the parent comment did not understand the german text.