[kcplate]

Oh we care, but when it comes to cookie dickovers, we care more about making the corporate lawyers happy.

I’ll admit that I definitely like collecting my paycheck much more than I worry about customer annoyance at acknowledging a cookie policy. Some hills ain't worth dying on.

[SoftTalker]

Or your company could respect its users and only use cookies for essential site functions. Then you don't need a dickover.

[bombcar]

I like the make the cookie for hiding the dickover be 30-60 minutes in duration for anyone in a company IP address. Own medicine is the best dog food.

[brett-jackson]

The vast majority of users don’t know or care. The ones who do are blocking the cookies anyways. No one wins with these popups (except trial lawyers and sellers of cookie consent SaaS, of course).

[interf4ce]

Protecting forms with reCAPTCHA uses cookies that fall under "marketing" and gathering site stats using Google Analytics uses cookies that fall under "marketing" and "statistics," making a consent banner or dickover pretty much required.

Are these services necessary for a page to work? Not at all, but many businesses consider them crucial. Unprotected public forms almost immediately start getting spammed by bots, burying real, important communications from potential clients. GA offers insight into what visitors to your site are looking for, which has real business value.

I don't like it any more than you do, but I get why businesses would choose to use these. On their end, at least with reCAPTCHA, they're just trying to protect themselves from the complete shitshow that the modern web has become.

[bmn__]

False dichotomy, it's perfectly possible to have protection on a form without dicking over a user's basic right to privacy.

[interf4ce]

I'm very interested in any alternatives you can suggest.

[kcplate]

We wouldn't need a dickover at all if governments didn’t regulate it either.

[happymellon]

Even with the regulations, we don't need a dickover.

The dickover is purely spite from the websites.

[kcplate]

> The dickover is purely spite from the websites.

No, it’s a legal CYA that provides safe harbor in case you are accused of the behavior. If a law says you need to inform, your lawyers will demand you inform even if zero cookies are used on the site.

[happymellon]

> your lawyers will demand you inform even if zero cookies are used on the site.

How is not bothering to understand your business, using it as an excuse to hassle your customers in the worst way they have so far conceived and blaming a law that doesn't talk about cookie banners NOT spite?

[kcplate]

> How is not bothering to understand your business

If you are a lawyer how technically competent would you need to be to have complete assurance that your engineering team is now and always will be in full compliance to eliminate all risk to allow a lack of consent.

Or…you just drop the Ack on site and not worry over it. Thats not spite, it’s compliance convenience.

The method of compliance may may not be perfect, but it addresses the legal problem. There wouldn't be a legal issue without the law. This is not a chicken or the egg situation. No law, no need to inform even if no tracking cookies exist.

> hassle your customers in the worst way they have so far conceived

By informing and asking for a acknowledgment? That seems pretty benign compared to a ton of things I have seen over the last nearly three decades.

[xigoi]

But then sites could spy fn users without consent.

[kcplate]

So make it illegal to spy on users…not this “wishy-washy ask for their permission” first. If spying is the crux of the problem why not just solve it?

Instead we are presented with some lukewarm have it both ways BS where the only solution to truly give you safe harbor is present the cookie acknowledgment. Good corporate lawyers will demand the dickover even if you do not use cookies at all just to cover the company’s ass.