[phkahler]

Yes, "Keep all Cookies" and "only essential" should be right there if at all. I don't want to "manage Cookie setting" and have a bunch of switched - I'm often gone at that point (which BTW means I will not be sharing a link).

[vlovich123]

That’s not accidental. They want it to be extremely annoying and confusing so that you are forced to click accept all. The EU needs to clarify their legislation but for now they’ve made the internet objectively worse for everyone.

[teddyh]

Mostly agree, but:

> The EU needs to clarify their legislation

No, from what I understand, the law is already clear that “reject all” must be as easy as “accept all”. Those who doesn’t show this are already breaking the law.

> but for now they’ve made the internet objectively worse for everyone.

No, the companies with cookie banner web sites did that.

[vlovich123]

The law should be opt out be default, not “throw up an interstitial”

> No, the companies with cookie banner web sites did that.

The companies are doing exactly what they need to do to stay in compliance while making sure their business is minimally impacted as possible.

[marcosdumay]

> The law should be opt out be default, not “throw up an interstitial”

That would be a bad law, with too many details that will be wrong on many contexts.

Stop making excuses to people that are trying to fuck you.

[capableweb]

> The EU needs to clarify their legislation but for now they’ve made the internet objectively worse for everyone.

The legislation is already clear, it should be as easy to opt-in as to opt-out. People/businesses didn't seem to get it, but more and more they are starting to realize it. Also, they don't want to be caught once fines starts being handed out.

"Objectively" should mean objectively, just because it doesn't fit with how you (or your employer) think the internet should work, doesn't mean that's what everyone thinks. I'm quite happy that websites have to disclose what they are doing and ask for permission. They could also not track me and not having to ask for any permission, but not many websites chose to act like that, so nice to get the heads up.

[vlovich123]

What I’m saying is that the reject all non essential buttons should be the default, no interstitial. There should be a non intrusive banner or other kind of notification asking you to opt in

[Lex-2008]

I think they do now? At least, on Google, I now get two similarly-looking buttons: "Reject all" and "Accept all" next to each other, with a small "More options" link underneath. Pretty close to what's shown here:

https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/21/23035289/google-reject-al...

[hiccuphippo]

Recently I've seen many sites put a "reject all" button in the same size and color as the "accept all" button, Stack Overflow for example. I thought some legislation must have changed somewhere.

[thr717272]

Legislation hadn't changed, but some big company (Google?) realized EU was serious and they would get fined big time if they continued to pretend to not understand, and then a few more took the hint afterwards.

[Izkata]

I thought the legislation always said something like "rejecting must take the same number of clicks as accepting" and the ones without a "reject all" just weren't in compliance.

[vlovich123]

And yet somehow they’ll remember my choice to accept while reasking every visit if I reject.

The legislation needs to be opt out by default with a non obtrusive request to opt in. These aren’t players in good faith so why indulge them in legislation.

[marcosdumay]

> And yet somehow they’ll remember my choice to accept while reasking every visit if I reject.

Guess what, the GDPR doesn't allow that either.