Weird question to ask through radio, over.
this post was submitted on 30 May 2026
80 points (96.5% liked)
Technology
85016 readers
3365 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Cookie questions unfortunately are required by law in the EU so don’t meet Gruber’s own definition.
That said the EU needs to force browser makers to respect a set of more granular “do not tracks” settings and then just read the “necessary/functional/settings/marketing” acceptance from there.
Meanwhile you can use the Consent-O-Matic extension. You set your preference once and auto applies to the all websites.
The law doesn’t require cookie questions to be dickovers.
No, the dark patterns are terrible.
Cookie banners are not required if all you use are actually necessary cookies instead of sharing data with 395 of your partners.
Only 395?!?!
But functional cookies also need approval, no?
As far as I know (and I'm not 100 % sure), no. You don't even need to inform users that you use functional cookies. Most likely because these work for the person using your website, not against them (persisting the session, settings, and so on).
I looked it up; you are right. Strictly necessary cookies do not need consent.
Those banners that include necessary cookies are all misdirection so they can make the whole more confusing.
Like how sites want you to believe ads are now worthless if they are not targeted and being fed all of your private data. Untargeted ads used to remunerate them just fine before that was an option.
tumblr has had an incredibly annoying one since forever, the login wall. It shows up while scrolling down about half a screen to tell you you can't browse any more of it without an account. There are greasemonkey scripts to remove it, but every once in a while tumblr changes the way it's displaying that shit, so the scripts have to be updated.
(Yeah, I know, tumblr. Don't judge, I used to download a lot of Sims custom content, and a lot of sim modders like tumblr, for a reason I still don't fully understand)
I do hate those things. Even the BBC uses a dickover on their site...
Enabling an Annoyances list in ublock origin prevents some of these from dicking up, thankfully.
I sense that all started with the stupid GDPR popups. If so, then sincere apologies from Europe.
GDPR wasn't what introduced cookie banners, that was the ePrivacy directive which came before the GDPR. Either way, I'd argue cookie banners are an act of malicious compliance with both of these, as I'm pretty sure they were intended to reduce usage of tracking / analytics / other non-required cookies altogether. The annoying banners are, in my opinion, an effort to make people angry at the EU instead of the ad companies.
I feel like the newsletter signups came first