Usually anything related to GDPR.
I believe California has a similar law framework.
Essentially websites are obligated to ask for consent of storing cookies.
Usually they can be denied and you won’t have a personalized experience (e.g. dark mode wont be persistent between page visits) but it should not prevent you from viewing.
It’s just companies will pressure you into accepting them by utilizing dark patterns and try to coax you into accepting the most privacy invasive options (and selling your data to >500 advertisers)
My favorite new dark pattern is the one where the website forces you to either accept the cookies or pay/subscribe.
There seems to be some argument around whether this is technically legal or not, it seems to worm its way around the written guidelines just enough but certainly goes against the spirit of it.
The fact that “Reject All” is an option, has always been an option, gives the game away entirely.
In fact, functional cookies, that are only used for page functionality, like remembering your dark mode preference on the site itself, does not require consent under GDPR. Consent is only required for tracking cookies: cookies that are used to identify you (and then usually to remember what you’ve looked at, purchased before, etc).
Unfortunately, because the law is not entirely clear, and because a lot of people don’t know exactly what cookies are or do, even sites that don’t even have tracking cookies have added consent banners just in case. And sites that don’t care have added banners without an equally visible “reject all” button, the absence of which doesn’t even make them compliant (but probably enough that they feel they can claim they thought they were).
What’s a cookie banner?
I must have Element Zapped it the first time I saw one and never seen one since
Usually anything related to GDPR.
I believe California has a similar law framework.
Essentially websites are obligated to ask for consent of storing cookies.
Usually they can be denied and you won’t have a personalized experience (e.g. dark mode wont be persistent between page visits) but it should not prevent you from viewing.
It’s just companies will pressure you into accepting them by utilizing dark patterns and try to coax you into accepting the most privacy invasive options (and selling your data to >500 advertisers)
My favorite new dark pattern is the one where the website forces you to either accept the cookies or pay/subscribe.
There seems to be some argument around whether this is technically legal or not, it seems to worm its way around the written guidelines just enough but certainly goes against the spirit of it.
The fact that “Reject All” is an option, has always been an option, gives the game away entirely.
In fact, functional cookies, that are only used for page functionality, like remembering your dark mode preference on the site itself, does not require consent under GDPR. Consent is only required for tracking cookies: cookies that are used to identify you (and then usually to remember what you’ve looked at, purchased before, etc).
Unfortunately, because the law is not entirely clear, and because a lot of people don’t know exactly what cookies are or do, even sites that don’t even have tracking cookies have added consent banners just in case. And sites that don’t care have added banners without an equally visible “reject all” button, the absence of which doesn’t even make them compliant (but probably enough that they feel they can claim they thought they were).