[dmitryminkovsky]

> The annoying and confusing cookie banners are a feature.

Not just that, but I’ve never seen a cookie banner that does anything. Cookies get sent down with the page on the initial load. Whenever I’ve opened an inspector to see if cookies get unset by JavaScript in response to my “opting out,” I’ve never seen an effect. The same cookies get sent after I opt out: no change. Has anyone seen a cookie preference banner that actually does something?

[Symbiote]

Look at well-funded government or other public websites.

https://www.gov.uk/, https://www.nhs.uk/, https://europa.eu/, https://home.cern/, https://www.bundesregierung.de/ (maybe), https://www.dr.dk/ (maybe).

[simpss]

smaller, local(to me) sites have started to have cookie banners that have an effect. My bank, 1/3 of the bigger news sites here etc...

They all started with a single "agree" button, then went to "agree/disagree" with no effect and are finally starting to come around to a functioning disagree button.

GDPR also helps here, as it defined what identifies an individual and that made most of the tracking PII even when it's all merged by a random ID that stays with the user. The effect is slow, but it's starting to work.

Hopefully the next step will be abandoning cookie banners and only using technically required cookies(don't need conset) and/or non-identifying tracking for aggregate results. This is a massive improvment on UX and actually gives the company more quality data that doesn't identify any single individual.

I'm personally pushing for aggregated tracking in my current company. It's an uphill battle, but one that can be won I think.

[imiric]

> non-identifying tracking for aggregate results

That sounds similar to FLoC, which is still very much identifying[1].

The solution to user tracking isn't less identifying tracking. It's no user tracking.

[1]: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/privacy-analysis-of-floc...