6 ms·

> The EU is to blame for cookie banners on basically every website on the internet. This is the most low-rent complaint imaginable and it boggles my mind how I

> The EU is to blame for cookie banners on basically every website on the internet. This is the most low-rent complaint imaginable and it boggles my mind how I keep seeing it made straight-faced. One time I literally timed how long it took me to dismiss a EU cookie banner, it was about 350ms and only needs to be done once per site. All this outrage is over 350ms and I cannot take it seriously.

mghackerlady 8mo ago
Also, why would you not want cookie banners? I prefer being able to choose to opt out of them, even if it's annoying
- embedding-shape 8mo ago
  I think the general vibe I get from some Americans is that they're OK with some abuse, as long as you don't tell them about it or do it to your face, and they would rather have some abuse than none but having to make their own choices. Of course, small subsection of people, but plenty of HN commentators make that exact case over and over whenever the discussions about cookie banners come up.
  - mghackerlady 8mo ago
    Seems to be the case as well. Theres also a bit of apathy in that its become so normalised people dont even care
- roger110 8mo ago
  So every article on some site I try to read doesn't throw a full-page modal, sometimes with a delay. At least reader mode will sometimes ignore those banners.
- DANmode 8mo ago
  Because the law probably should have mandated functionality-only cookies until I disclaim my right to privacy, such as when creating an account, or doing anything to provide consent besides loading the domain. Instead, we normalized breaking the site by covering 80% of it so the standard user clicks the first thing that brings the site back: Accept (giving me the 80 advertiser tracking cookies!!1!)
  - mghackerlady 8mo ago
    I'm sceptical the "functionality-only cookies" are what they say they are
    - DANmode 8mo ago
      It would definitely be the next place to keep your eyes peeled for fuckery.

mghackerlady 8mo ago

Also, why would you not want cookie banners? I prefer being able to choose to opt out of them, even if it's annoying

embedding-shape 8mo ago
I think the general vibe I get from some Americans is that they're OK with some abuse, as long as you don't tell them about it or do it to your face, and they would rather have some abuse than none but having to make their own choices. Of course, small subsection of people, but plenty of HN commentators make that exact case over and over whenever the discussions about cookie banners come up.
- mghackerlady 8mo ago
  Seems to be the case as well. Theres also a bit of apathy in that its become so normalised people dont even care
roger110 8mo ago
So every article on some site I try to read doesn't throw a full-page modal, sometimes with a delay. At least reader mode will sometimes ignore those banners.
DANmode 8mo ago
Because the law probably should have mandated functionality-only cookies until I disclaim my right to privacy, such as when creating an account, or doing anything to provide consent besides loading the domain. Instead, we normalized breaking the site by covering 80% of it so the standard user clicks the first thing that brings the site back: Accept (giving me the 80 advertiser tracking cookies!!1!)
- mghackerlady 8mo ago
  I'm sceptical the "functionality-only cookies" are what they say they are
  - DANmode 8mo ago
    It would definitely be the next place to keep your eyes peeled for fuckery.