Post

Not posting this over there but cookie banners are NOT the issue. Sorry to my friends in 🇺🇸, if that's your opinion, it's an L take. Making "Reject all" difficult to trick users into clicking "Accept all" is the problem. That and sharing data with 850+ "partners" to "improve services"...

12/11/24, 9:04 am6 reposts72 likes

Corbie 🐦‍⬛

@corbieailin.bsky.social

The EU regulation is lovely and I've noticed a huge difference over here in the US. Very appreciated!

Philippe L'ATTENTION

Well they are a annoying though, but I strongly agree. The base experience of the web should NOT be to share my Amazon purchase history or Google search to this random cooking recipes blog I am visiting because it uses the ubiquitous Google Ads or something

@thiagolino8.bsky.social

Cookie banners are just a symptom Their haters pretend to forget that it was only created to solve a problem, a real one, created by the industry

@handle.invalid

Ah, this is such a nice perspective from a fellow European. I was getting tired of all the Americans blaming the EU for the poor user experience on the web.

I'm blaming greedy corporations which largely happen to be US based so we can call it even 😂

@martynas.eurosky.social

There is another problem. Before even accepting anything or rejecting anything, the scripts already loaded and tracks you. :)

yeah that's obviously in violation of the EU regulation 🤷‍♂️

Lenz Weber-Tronic

I agree, but disagree on a technicality: "Cookie banner" is a problem. It should be called "Tracking consent banner". It's not only about cookies and the name is far too abstract.

Fine, there are more problems. But the EU regulation isn't one of them. Except that it maybe didn't go far enough and demand a "Reject all" button right in the banner itself.

Lenz Weber-Tronic

Yup, the EU regulation is fine, and I even believe that it demands for that "reject all" button. I believe the naming is actually not mentioned in the regulation and just "code" the economy has come up with that sounds as harmless as possible. But we don't need to use it.

AFAIK it demands that if you go to a sub-screen like "Settings" that nothing is pre-selected except mandatory ones so that you can "Confirm Selection" to opt-out. It doesn't need to have a "Reject all" button in the banner itself.

@lexedwards.com

Jezzz, what site is that from? IMO they’re more egregious on mobile screens, some I’ve had to keep scrolling through 20 sections to deselect, because the “Reject All” button is unreachable.

It's not allowed to have things pre-selected in the settings screen that you get to from the banner. Sites that do this violate the EU regulation. It needs to be "Settings -> Confirm Selection" and be done with it.

Also: Just use Brave Browser. I haven't seen a cookie banner in years and had to start Chrome just to make that screenshot 😂

Project Night Watch

@pnwnet.bsky.social

Have downloaded Brave Browser. Had not heard of this browser until you mentioned it. And look forward to testing it against some news sites that hit with numerous adverts, making them unreadable.

Annoying cookie banners are ubiquitous enough to admit that there is an issue here. Saying “well just don’t use 3rd party cookies” is not good enough because as a strategy it clearly fails to provide a good experience for both sites authors and users.

Why is "no 3rd party cookies" a bad user experience? Companies have options: No cookies (doable but I "get it"), a small window with "accept all" and "reject all" that doesn't track until you accept. But nooo they choose huge blocking overlays and obfuscate the reject all option as much as possible

No 3rd party cookies is a great UX, and I’d prefer if all sites would opt for that. It just doesn’t seem realistic, and regulator should take that into account. If such a large number of sites use obtrusive banners it points to a systematic issue IMO.

Aaron Pettengill

@pettengill.dev

Cookie banners are just malicious compliance. Then people like to point at them like the regulation is the problem.