Top
Best
New

Posted by rapnie 17 hours ago

Kill The Cookie Banner(killthecookiebanner.eu)
859 points | 421 commentspage 6
croes 9 hours ago|
So DNT back again?
righthand 10 hours ago||
The captchas are worse imo (from an usability standpoint) especially the newer Cloudflare infront of everything to check for bots trend.
charcircuit 11 hours ago||
Even if you communicated your preferences sites would still want to ask for an exception to them. At least you won't see them ask for consent if you preapprove it.
gitowiec 9 hours ago||
I expanded Polish politics names and what I saw made me vomit. Will never send email to those fuckups.
johndhi 11 hours ago||
how about: -if we really don't like targeted advertising, just outlaw it -then let websites do whatever they want with our cookies so long as they aren't targeted advertising

instead of building websites and writing laws over the span of decades that just seem to want to ban targeted advertising but don't actually do it. FFS.

jebronie2 9 hours ago||
This initiative is ignorant and idiotic. The authors don't even understand the purpose of cookie banners.

1. Making tracking impossible/illegal would NOT kill cookie banners, since you need them to record consent for other purposes as well, such as embedding a video from a third party like YouTube.

2. The GDPR explicitly prohibits site-owners from making cookie banners misleading. The law is already there, it is just not very well enforced.

3. "This results in up to 90% of people saying “YES” – even though only around 3% actually want to be tracked online" This claim is grabbed out of thin air and can be dismissed as such.

4. "The solution: automatically communicate your privacy preference" This is nonsense because it does not actually solve anything, because you need to record consent for a variety of purposes, not just analytics/tracking.

5. Killing tracking would kill the value of ads (since they are not targeted anymore), resulting in a reduced ability for small businesses to advertise and a hugely increased amount of ad spam everywhere. Few targeted ads > Many untargeted ads

Unless you want an internet where advertising is no longer possible, this solves nothing apart from stroking a few activists ego.

paulddraper 13 hours ago||
Doesn't this lead to an all-or-nothing approach?

I don't want randomnewssite to track me. But a favorite online store...I do want help with recommendations.

joeframbach 13 hours ago||
You would presumably be logged in to your favorite store site, and they would be using your identifying session to make recommendations, not anonymous tracking cookies.
paulddraper 13 hours ago||
Eh, maybe.

It's easier to click a single button than hunt for how to create/access an account for the brand.

dymk 13 hours ago|||
Then sign in, thats enough signal for them to track you
frollogaston 11 hours ago||
Logging in isn't consent for tracking. They can even support login by itself without a tracking banner.
qurren 13 hours ago|||
Just disable cookies on your browser by default, and enable it for the sites that you need to log in to.

Ironically, this has the effect of cookie banners reappearing every time because they cannot place a cookie that says that you have rejected them.

Phemist 13 hours ago|||
Malicious compliance. You do not need a cookie to "store" the fact you have rejected them. They can simply assume you have rejected them from the lack of cookies. They can store a cookie once you (have gone out of your way to) accept them.
frollogaston 11 hours ago||
Lack of cookies could mean you never visited the site before.
Phemist 8 hours ago||
Safe to assume I reject things on my first visit as well
mzajc 13 hours ago||||
Unless disabling cookies means treating all cookies as session cookies (meaning you can still be followed within a session), this has the fun side effect of breaking pretty much every CAPTCHA firewall like Anubis, Cloudflare Turnstile, and any other that relies on cookies.

Unfortunately this means you have to view a lot of the web through archive.today or web.archive.org - I would know because I have uMatrix configured this way.

frollogaston 11 hours ago|||
Session cookies for non-whitelisted sites is a nice balance between usability and privacy.

Session cookies for all sites would be fine if passkeys weren't like "We support passkeys. Do you want to use a passkey? Press ok again to use your passkey. Do you consent to using your passkey? Now please authenticate yourself to use the passkey... √ Thank you for using passkeys. Press ok to continue."

qurren 11 hours ago|||
Honestly I've found that it's often the local businesses that shoot themselves in the foot more by this.

I disable cookies for Amazon because I need to login; if a local business wants me to buy from them directly they need to:

1. Not give me a CAPTCHA or cloudflare shit

2. Give me free shipping and a lower price than Amazon minus 5% cashback that I would get on Amazon

3. No registration needed to check out

and I'll buy from the local website. It's really not a high bar, they need to learn to not shoot themselves in the foot.

As for the news websites -- bleh. If they want me to read it, make it easy to read. As in, I click into it, show me the content. If I get a popup, banner, anything that covers up the content, I bounce. I'll get the news from social media anyway. If they'd rather I get it from their news website, they need to learn to not make me bounce.

I'm not opposed to advertising if they want to get revenue from that, but it should not track me, not cover up content, and not load megabytes of JavaScript to do it.

tcfhgj 13 hours ago|||
you can be tracked without cookies - the cookie dialogs are about tracking and processing of personal data in general.

-> not really sensible

amelius 13 hours ago||
Just configure your browser to ask for cookies for that store only?
logicallee 10 hours ago||
All browser providers have been required by international law[1] to send such a cookie popup suppression signal as set by the user, or one substantially like it, since July 18, 2026 and all web sites have been required to obey it or a superseding Internet standard:

https://stateofutopia.com/laws/2/law2.html

This is not a proposal, it is duly ratified international law that applies to "Every Browser Maker making a Browser available anywhere" and "Any site anywhere that receives a valid signal".

The EU Commission had until July 18, 2026 to modify its laws:

>"The site shall not display a banner, modal, interstitial, or other prompt requesting a choice already expressed by the signal. It may optionally provide a “Cookie Settings” or “Privacy Settings” link. This Law overrides all laws requiring such a display. Where any country or supernational entity has a conflicting law, it must rectify the Law within 30 days not to require such notification."

Therefore, insofar as it has not rectified its laws not to require such a notification, the EU Commission is in violation of international law as of 8 days ago.

Under section 7.3, "The State of Utopia may order compliance, require corrective updates, suspend non-compliant distribution, and impose civil penalties. Fines may be levied in any amount for continued non-compliance." so we can fine the EU Commission whatever you guys want ($1 billion? $10 billion? whatever four and a half millennia are worth) and just distribute the collected fines among you all as cash payments.

[1] Here is the announcement of the law 38 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48585778

wrqvrwvq 12 hours ago||
or we could glass the continent
nektro 11 hours ago|
can we also kill the dark pattern of "accept all" and "choose your preferences" ?
jebronie2 7 hours ago|
this is already illegal, which goes to show how useless even more legislation is
More comments...