3 ms·

>Would you rather be ignorant of the fact that you're being tracked with 200 cookies? Yes? I know I'm tracked and I know I can do nothing about it besides acce

>Would you rather be ignorant of the fact that you're being tracked with 200 cookies? Yes? I know I'm tracked and I know I can do nothing about it besides accepting the annoying cookie warning, so it's pretty much meaningless unless there is option Reject All. If you must always allow at least "essential" cookies them it's while warning meaningless. Either show me no warning or give me Reject all button, nothing in between, otherwise it just shows your incompetence to solve the problem. It's as meaningful as permanent sign "There is traffic jam on this road", though that sign one would be less annoying. I always loved in some subway system in Asia regular PSA "There were pickpocketers detected in subway system", really helpful... Dunno whether it was India or HK or somewhere.

rlpb 5y ago
It is illegal to make it difficult to "Reject All" and those who do not comply are being fined. For example Google and Facebook: "The CNIL found that Google and Facebook's failures to make non-essential cookies as easy to reject as to accept invalidated the consent on which the businesses relied. Whereas cookies could be accepted by a single 'click', a number of steps were needed to reject them." ... "The CNIL stressed that consent must be freely given which implies that it must be as easy for a user to accept non-essential cookies as to reject them." https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6001cd19-ecbf-4d77-93eb-f5ff8453064a https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6001cd19-ecbf... The gears are turning slowly but they are turning.