[mfontani]

Well, sure - you can still send some signals to see ads that are relevant to the _content_ as opposed to the _viewer_.

Example: you're seeing an article about devops and you get an ad about AWS instead of an ad that has followed you around from another website you visited previously.

The cookie used for frequency capping is considered to be a "technical cookie" and has no bearing on privacy, best I can tell.

The other types of cookies can be pretty much disabled at the point of calling the google tag, or enabled (along with more tracking/targeting ads) if the user consented to that.

[the_gipsy]

> The cookie used for frequency capping is considered to be a "technical cookie" and has no bearing on privacy, best I can tell.

But the comment you're responding to says it right there: Even google is telling you it requires consent. It's a cookie, so it requires consent, period. Don't fool yourself.

Could google serve ads without cookies, and do fraud detection by other means? Yes, perhaps lowering payout due to increased risk. But it much better to pretend that a cookie-banner is needed, so that you might as well enable ad-tracking cookies.

[luckylion]

Since it's a technical cookie that's required for ads/marketing, it very much falls under marketing, I believe. Imho "technical cookies" are e.g. Cloudflare's __cfduid or your framework setting a session cookie because it wants to be stateful.