3 ms·
Many years ago, I used to make informational websites for small, local businesses and they all wanted the cookie banner "just to be safe", even after explaining
by quruquru 2mo ago
Many years ago, I used to make informational websites for small, local businesses and they all wanted the cookie banner "just to be safe", even after explaining they didn't need it.
- Xirdus 2mo agoThis website contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cookies.
- zippyman55 2mo agoThe Irish Republican Army, even at the height of their conflict, would never have stooped to such a website.
- forgotaccount3 2mo agoBut are you a software developer or a lawyer? Do they 'not need it' because the government provided a way to ensure it's not needed or because your interpretation of the law indicates it's unnecessary? Are you willing to indemnify them for legal costs if your guidance was wrong? Most small business owner's I've spoken to are keenly aware they are only one bad lawsuit away of closing down. Almost no one care's about the cookie banner. Most just mindlessly click to allow cookies and go on with their life. There's almost no cost to having it.
- mrandish 2mo agoThe 'better safe than sorry' calculation of small businesses skews almost 100% toward 'safe' because almost all govt regulations contain no reasonable size scaling cap on penalties. Any penalties on a website that are per-occurance could be almost infinite.
- inigyou 2mo agoGDPR actually has one. It's 3% of global revenue.