Personally, I find this a move in the wrong direction where hostile behavior by websites is normalized and hidden. Cookie banners show web site true colors. When someone asks me to share data with a thousand of "partners", I leave.
> Personally, I find this a move in the wrong direction where hostile behavior by websites is normalized and hidden. Cookie banners show web site true colors. When someone asks me to share data with a thousand of "partners", I leave.
I kind of agree, but at the same time basically all websites are using some kind of tracking to know what kind of users visit, and I'm tired of clicking "allow all" just to read an article. Many websites don't even work if you refuse non-essential trackers, because their tag manager is configured incorrectly, or because by law if there's even a single textbox where users can put their email or name, they need to have the consent to show that and allow input on it.
Having a browser default of "nope" with the option to whitelist a broken website would save a ton of time for people and machines the same, and also reduce website latency a lot. There's a nice website that "tracks" this cost: https://cookiecost.eu/
> all websites are using some kind of tracking to know what kind of users visit
Server side analytics exists, its the ad optimization and feeding data brokers which is the reason. You can disable cookies for google analytics (storage none).
I agree. I think it's one of those things that people complain about because other people complain about. You have to click a button. Wow. What an ordeal. The title of this thread used the term "nightmare". I would be thankful that my life is so wonderful that clicking a button is considered a "nightmare". It's transparent and if you don't like it, don't go to that site.
It's a nightmare because it is everywhere you turn, not because of the difficulty in dismissing the banner (although not all banners are made equally). But I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to realize you're intentionally making a strawman argument. It's the purpose of the argument I'm not sure.
I think I agree, at least until it's clear how exactly this should be implemented.
Fingerprints can be shared with third parties without cookies, and while I know that the so-called "cookie law" is not really just about cookies, this is where the deception begins.
For some reason, I think it's easier to force websites to list everyone they share data with, than to force them to comply with an invisible preference that says "don't share data".
It even sounds as if this could be a trojan horse to dismantle parts of the GDPR altogether (see the DNT references in this thread...), and I happen to think that by and large, GDPR is good.
Personally, I find this a move in the wrong direction where hostile behavior by websites is normalized and hidden. Cookie banners show web site true colors. When someone asks me to share data with a thousand of "partners", I leave.