[ocdtrekkie]

The nuisance is an intentional choice by the bad actors in marketing to make you mad about the banner instead of their business practices of tracking you everywhere.

Understand that cookie banners are malicious compliance and they make a lot more sense.

[eyelidlessness]

This is an utterly annoying failure of legislation. The law could have mandated that a standardized mechanism to opt in (or even out!) would be implemented by major browsers and the relevant standards, providing APIs for websites to integrate. It could have even been about that vague and still be more effective and less counterproductive. The actual legislation invites this sort of abuse. Understanding that the abuse is intentional is a component of understanding the situation. But the blame for it doesn’t absolve the law, it implicates it.

If the vague proposal I’m suggesting sounds outlandish, that’s more or less how every major browser implements other requests for intrusive APIs as a matter of protecting users. Even when they do it half-heartedly they do it by developing a standard with their more invested peers which is far less prone to universal abuse.

[ocdtrekkie]

I agree it was a weak legislation, but I think governments failed at the time to realize just how blatantly crooked the tech industry is, and is willing to be. I think it's taken a while but more aggressive actions are starting to be taken. Though ultimately I don't think we'll have straightened out Big Tech until we have laws on the books that let us put Pichai and Zuckerberg in prison. As long as their actions can be aspired to instead of a cautionary tale, more will follow in their footsteps.

[jacamera]

Why should I be mad about a tracking cookie?

> Understand that cookie banners are malicious compliance and they make a lot more sense.

How are they malicious compliance? The laws are poorly-reasoned and poorly-written. I'll continue to be mad about that.

[haileys]

There are no laws in Australia requiring cookie banners, and yet I get hit with them constantly. So the law is clearly not the reason for these annoying banners.

[Zarel]

The EU laws require the banners to be shown to all EU citizens regardless of the country they're in, right? I think the only way to be absolutely safe is to show cookie banners everywhere.

[closewith]

No, it applies to EU residents, no matter their citizenship.

[petre]

No it doesn't. It stipulates that the site operators need informed consent to track you using cookies. So what they do is nag you with dark patterns to obtain it, creating an annoying experience.

[aneeshnl]

Developer here. Its much easier and a lazy way to enable for everyone, rather than tracking ips, citizenship and show accordingly. Developers are lazy.

[lopatin]

Which Australian sites require cookie opt-ins?

[jacamera]

So then why do you think you see them?

*Edit: Sorry if this came off as rude but it was a legitimate question. I honestly cannot think of another plausible reason that would explain the proliferation of the banners.