Sarcasm aside, it's curious that lawmakers (even in Europe) thought it better to make a requirement of O(N^N) site owners rather than "require" that O(5) browse

Sarcasm aside, it's curious that lawmakers (even in Europe) thought it better to make a requirement of O(N^N) site owners rather than "require" that O(5) browsers implement a feature which they all do already. I always use cookies on a whitelist-only basis, and it is quite common to find web sites that require cookies for no good reason -- sometimes, I suspect, without even realizing it -- and then fail with no message when cookies are disabled. I believe that cookies should be regarded as a progressive enhancement. If your web site requires cookies to implement a paywall, then detect when they are disabled and say so. If you can add features when cookies are available, great; if they're not, let me know what I'm missing. But don't tell me that "a browser error is preventing me from logging in," as many sites do. Once again, I'm sure this is boilerplate code that the actual site owner isn't even aware of.