[GardenLetter27]

The cookie popups is such a painful representation of Europe tech in general.

Like you can configure your browser to do whatever you want with cookies - blocking them all, blocking only third party ones, etc. - there is no need for government regulation here.

But the legislators are completely tech illiterate and even the general public supports more interference and regulation.

[phba]

The legislation simply says if you collect more data about your users than necessary, you must inform them and they must consent. This has nothing to do with cookies or any other tech.

The question a user should ask is why is this website collecting my data. Marketing and adtech companies are trying to shift this question to why is the EU making websites worse.

> there is no need for government regulation here

You don't need to care about this if you respect users' privacy in the same way you don't need to care about waste water regulation when you don't pump waste into rivers.

[npteljes]

No, that legislation is perfectly fine! It's the pesky websites who can't get their grubby hands off of private data. They could very well do away with some of the tracking, and have no popup at all, fully legally! But they all chose not to, and would rather annoy everyone with the pop-up.

I'd welcome a ramp-up of the legislation: outlaw the kind of tracking that needs the banners currently outright. I'm sure a lot of websites would just geo-block EU as a result (like how some did because of GDPR), but I bet the EU-compliant visitor tracking solutions would suddenly skyrocket, and overall, nothing of value would be lost, neither for the users, nor for the website administrators.

[james_in_the_uk]

It’s a bit of both.

It’s not possible to rely on browser controls as-is, because they do not differentiate between necessary and optional cookies.

Browser vendors could agree standards and implement them, exposing these to users and advertisers in a friendly way.

But they haven’t shown any interest in doing this.

I wonder why?

[mrguyorama]

Without laws forcing companies to properly declare which cookies are "necessary", this control you imagine does nothing, as every company simply sets their advertising cookies as "necessary"

One of the hundreds of reasons do_not_track failed. You cannot do something that trusts the website operators, because they are egregiously untrustworthy.

The cookie banner everyone keeps bitching about is a direct example of this. No website is required to have a cookie banner. They choose to, because they know most users click "Yes to all", and then complain about the regulators, instead of the assholes asking you to consent to sharing your data with nearly a thousand third parties

And "browser vendors" will never do anything, because 90% of the market is a literal advertising behemoth, the rest of the market is owned by a company that makes money only when you do things not through the web browser.

[james_in_the_uk]

What is considered a “strictly necessary” use of cookies is set out in law in a quite a number of countries.

My point is about UX: it could be much slicker if the browser industry standardised the consent mechanism.

You make a good point about lack of incentives.

[account42]

The only ones who are tech illiterate are the ones still repeating this nonsense in 2025.