4 ms·
> It's really a very reasonable rule. Impact on users is annoying pop up every time you visit a new web site, which ask s for permission to store cookies. It d
by petilon 5y ago
> It's really a very reasonable rule.
Impact on users is annoying pop up every time you visit a new web site, which ask s for permission to store cookies. It doesn't seem like a reasonable rule. Storing cookies is reasonable. That's how the web works. Don't need special permission for it, and asking for permission every time serves no purpose other than irritating users.
- pfortuny 5y agoStoring cookies is reasonable if I am using the remote computer to something more than just “go there to see a post or just navigate”. Otherwise, what would they care about the computer I am using? Go to any newspaper and just browse? I do not want a cookie for that. Go to youtube because I have seen a link which might be interesting? I do not want a cookie for that. I would allow a cookie if I am going to fill a form. Otherwise, I do not deem it reasonable. Accesible servers are there to serve. My computer is not.
- thorin1 5y agoYou don't need a cookie banner for cookies that are necessary for your website functionality. For example auth cookie doesn't need a banner. However, most of the websites are using cookies for advertising and sharing data with 3rd parties, that's why they have the banner.
- lesuorac 5y ago> Impact on users is annoying pop up every time you visit a new web site, which ask s for permission to store cookies. Go read the directive, it doesn't require a banner or an obtrusive banner.
- petilon 5y ago> it doesn't require a banner or an obtrusive banner. And yet, that's the impact on users.
- eesmith 5y agoThe best way to change a useful law is to convince people it's not useful. The best way to distract people from unpopular activities is to point the finger at someone else. (Rather like how in the UK "health and safety" is used as cover for unpopular decisions.)