[Swizec]

> I avoid to click anything about cookies' authorisation, i.e. if a page present that kind of requests I immediately close the page itself. At the and, I verified that cookies are presente on browser's storage

I have recently had to implement some of these banners. Here’s what I learned: click reject.

The way America’s version of the cookie banner law (not sure about EU) works is that cookies are default allowed. They are set before the banner even shows. Rejecting the cookies then sets a cookie that you’d like cookies rejected. The cookies remain, but the banner’s scripts block tracking requests based on those cookies on subsequent requests.

So if a site uses GA and you reject cookies, you still get and keep a GA cookie. But the cookie banner later turns GA’s javascript into “text/plain” so your browser doesn’t execute it. This is what [at least some of] the banners mean by “reject cookies”.

Yes it’s stupid and confusing. Possibly on purpose.

[BiteCode_dev]

In Europe at least, the law doesn't forbid cookies or mandate banners. It's about tracking and informed consent. It turns out companies love tracking, massively use cookies for this, and chose obnoxious cookie banner dark patterns to request consent.

But there is not such thing as a "cookie banner law".

[Swizec]

> But there is not such thing as a "cookie banner law"

A law that leads to cookie banners -> cookie banner law. We all know exactly what I meant.

But yes on my personal site I solved the problem by not tracking visitors because there’s no need. General traffic numbers are good enough for me.

[ndriscoll]

More importantly, use a malware blocker like ublock origin.