[shakow]

*tracking cookies

First-party, non-tracking cookies do not require a cookie banner.

I'm always flabbergaste how good the propaganda machines of ads agencies is that people are actively fighting protective measure on their behalf. Nihil novi sub sole I guess, but it's fascinating to see this process happen first hand.

[ThunderSizzle]

If it took a banner for you to realize people used Google analytics or similar services, then the banner isn't helping you avoid it.

You should've been running a blocker already. I run third party blockers as much as possible, but these banners are just excessive and useless.

[shakow]

> then the banner isn't helping you avoid it.

That's just plain false. I know many people, especially in the older, less technically literate people, who now systematically disable such analytics thanks to these banners – people who had never realised the real dimension of users tracking before this law.

[Aerroon]

It's not propaganda by ad agencies. Why make it into a conspiracy? There are pretty great tools out there that you can use for websites, such as Google analytics, but the moment you use that you're implementing a cookie banner.

Want to have ads? Cookie banner. Want to have YouTube/Twitter/whatever integration? Cookie banner.

europa.eu has a cookie banner. A website that doesn't even need to pay its own bills!

[shakow]

> Want to have ads? Cookie banner.

That's just wrong, you don't need a cookie banner for non-tracking ads.

[ThunderSizzle]

You need to have a cookie banner to have a third party provide ads, which is the most common way to do ads.

Regardless, I block the ads, but I'm still trying to figure out to block all the dialogs about cookies for the ads I'm blocking.

[shakow]

> You need to have a cookie banner to have a third party provide ads

No, you only need a cookie banner if those third parties collect data.