zlacker

>>headal+(OP)
The irony of trying to read this article and being assaulted by cookie warnings and ad popups that appear while scrolling is not lost on me.

>>nixpul+Jo1
Sadly they have no control over the cookie warnings

>>ramon1+Ep2
People say that but it's not really true. If they just have 1P cookies for basic functionality (login), then I believe there can be a discreet notice at the bottom informing the user of that fact. Groups like IEEE should be the ones pioneering those patterns.

>>AdamN+qX2
Not even sure you need any discreet notice about anything for strictly necessary first party cookies. That's my understanding of GDPR, at any rate.

>>lowerc+J13
You don't HAVE TO have a cookie banner for cookies which don't require consent.

Cookies not requiring consent :

  - "technical" cookies: for session, saving some user preferences (consenting to cookies or not, language etc.)
  - cookies used for load balancing or to protect against fraud
  - cookies used to save a cart or used to invoice some service
  - usage statistics cookies IF the data is anonymous

Also, the law is about trackers, not specifically cookies: so data in local and session storage are concerned as does browser fingerprinting.

>>arkh+0f3
But it's so much more effective to pretend like there are onerous requirements imposed by governments that interfere with the user experience. See: TikTok's early and unnecessary self-imposed, location-based shutdown with a pop-up message blaming the big bad government. Bonus points for ass kissing the easily manipulated current administration.

>>davegu+tQ3
Sorry, I don't understand this. They complied with legal requirements a couple of hours before obligated to do so.

Is my understanding of that situation wrong?