4 ms·

There's no auto-accept feature? I still wouldn't use it, or Firefox, because that kind of automated interaction seems unreliable, but I really don't want auto-

There's no auto-accept feature? I still wouldn't use it, or Firefox, because that kind of automated interaction seems unreliable, but I really don't want auto- reject breaking stuff.

marssaxman 4y ago
I never accept or reject cookie banners - I just delete them, using uBlock Origin. This works out fine, basically all the time, so far as my experience goes.
- pmontra 4y ago
  I also use NoScript. The cookie banner of ghacks didn't show either because I uBlocked it time ago or because it was displayed by a script that didn't run.
stonogo 4y ago
The law that triggered these banners already mandates that the website may not reduce functionality if the user rejects the cookies. Functionality-tied cookies are already exempted from the acceptance requirement. These banners are the most-user-hostile possible response to the law, so it makes sense to automate getting rid of them.
- eternityforest 4y ago
  Not everyone actually follows the law though, sometimes they mix in essential cookies and you have to click through a bunch of layers to turn them off without turning off essential ones. I wouldn't be surprised if they find some way to defeat this in a not quite legal way and break stuff for people who use it.
- mminer237 4y ago
  That's not true. Directive 2002/58/EC explicitly says that it's fine to condition use of websites upon acceptance of cookies: > Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0058:en:HTML#:~:text=access%20to%20specific%20website%20content%20may%20still%20be%20made%20conditional%20on%20the%20well-informed%20acceptance%20of%20a%20cookie%20or%20similar%20device%2C%20if%20it%20is%20used%20for%20a%20legitimate%20purpose https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX....
  - stonogo 4y ago
    No, it says "specific website content." The IAB already tried to interpret this text as enabling a full-site cookie-wall and lost the lawsuits.
  - xigoi 4y ago
    > if it is used for a legitimate purpose. Tracking is not a legitimate purpose.

There's no auto-accept feature? I still wouldn't use it, or Firefox, because that kind of automated interaction seems unreliable, but I really don't want auto- reject breaking stuff.

marssaxman 4y ago

I never accept or reject cookie banners - I just delete them, using uBlock Origin. This works out fine, basically all the time, so far as my experience goes.

pmontra 4y ago
I also use NoScript. The cookie banner of ghacks didn't show either because I uBlocked it time ago or because it was displayed by a script that didn't run.

stonogo 4y ago

The law that triggered these banners already mandates that the website may not reduce functionality if the user rejects the cookies. Functionality-tied cookies are already exempted from the acceptance requirement. These banners are the most-user-hostile possible response to the law, so it makes sense to automate getting rid of them.

eternityforest 4y ago
Not everyone actually follows the law though, sometimes they mix in essential cookies and you have to click through a bunch of layers to turn them off without turning off essential ones. I wouldn't be surprised if they find some way to defeat this in a not quite legal way and break stuff for people who use it.
mminer237 4y ago
That's not true. Directive 2002/58/EC explicitly says that it's fine to condition use of websites upon acceptance of cookies: > Access to specific website content may still be made conditional on the well-informed acceptance of a cookie or similar device, if it is used for a legitimate purpose. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0058:en:HTML#:~:text=access%20to%20specific%20website%20content%20may%20still%20be%20made%20conditional%20on%20the%20well-informed%20acceptance%20of%20a%20cookie%20or%20similar%20device%2C%20if%20it%20is%20used%20for%20a%20legitimate%20purpose https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX....
- stonogo 4y ago
  No, it says "specific website content." The IAB already tried to interpret this text as enabling a full-site cookie-wall and lost the lawsuits.
- xigoi 4y ago
  > if it is used for a legitimate purpose. Tracking is not a legitimate purpose.