The European Commission aims to reform the EU’s cookie consent rules that have cluttered websites with intrusive banners asking for permission to track user data[1]. The initiative seeks to streamline data protection while maintaining privacy safeguards through centralized consent mechanisms[1:1].
Cookie consent banners emerged from the ePrivacy Directive (Cookie Law) and GDPR requirements, which mandate websites obtain explicit user permission before collecting non-essential data through cookies[2]. Current rules have led to widespread implementation of pop-up notices that interrupt user experience and often employ confusing interfaces.
The proposed changes reflect growing recognition that the existing approach has “messed up the internet” while failing to provide meaningful privacy protection[1:2]. Rather than requiring individual consent on every website, the Commission is exploring solutions like centralized consent management to reduce banner fatigue while preserving user privacy rights.
The law didn’t mess up the internet, asshole business owners with their bullshit malicious compliance (and spineless devs enabling them) messed up the internet.
Yep, there even was a standard that would have been sufficient, Do Not Track. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Not_Track
Even worse, many data agencies will use the Do Not Track flag as an additional datapoint to add to your fingerprint.
This shit should be mandated, with strict “the company has been burned to the ground and the ashes have been salted” levels of penalties for violating it.
This! A thousand times THIS!
This is also evidence they never wanted to implement user protection.
It wouldn’t be hard to add a clause mandating that websites provide an easy-to-access “reject all” button that actually rejects all cookies.
Unless I’m very mistaken rejecting all cookies must not take more clicks than accepting them. Too bad nobody enforces that…
I’m pretty sure the law already said that the reject button cannot be more convoluted to access than the accept button, corporate websites just couldn’t care less
Yes, because of this i skip it, blocking anyway all the crap and cookies I don’t want, as also these cookie advices, only it is annoying because it last some seconds before these got skipped by the filterlist.
This works for a lot of sites:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/consent-o-matic/
Instead, ban the collection of non-essential data, and also ban the targeting of advertisements based on user profiles/history
Only select advertisements to display based on the immediate context, exactly like printed newspapers and magazines
That is the right way, ads are a legit manner to create incommings if they are contextual, but not if they are abusive and surveillance based, tracking and logging the user activity. As in YT, it’s not the problem to have ads in the page or as banner at the border of an video, but it is, that the interrupt an conciert documental with several no scippable long ads, popups to use Premium, clickbaits and other crap, which serve nobody, less the author. In this case using an adblocker is mere selfdefense and legit to cut this crap and nags. A good manner is eg. how Bandcamp do it, there you can freely listen almost every song or album, without ads, and there you can buy and download it when you want, paying direct to the artist and Bandcamp an revenue. Or as Vivaldi does, using afiliate links and search engines added by default, which pay an revenue to Vivaldi, if the user use these, who is free to delete those which he don’t use. These and similar methodes are a legit and ethical way to create incommings, without putting in risk the right of privacy of the user, selling his data.
Think they can ban the “pay, or let us track you” tactic I’ve been seeing pooping up too? That’s fucking extortion.
It is already illegal, but nobody is doing anything about that.
Bet the CNIL is.
That’s gross man. Where’s it pooping up so I can avoid it?
Ublock Origin’s “Cookie Notice Filter + Annoyances Filter” combo stays winning as always :)
Yes, the Vivaldi blocker use also the same filter, but as said, it skip the popup only after an second, when it finished to load. This filterlist is also used by almost all adblocker too (Adguard, Adblock Plus, uBO lite and others more, same as also specific extensions, like ‘I don’t Care About Cookies’ and others more. This is because these pop ups, apart of anoying, are useless.
Problem is not the law, but that the companies implemented it in as annoying of a way as possible to get people pissed off about the law and force it to be dropped, or for what actually happened which is that it’s too much work to not opt-in to the cookies which essentially makes it opt-out not in.
And the idea to remove the requirements for “simple statistics” or whatever terminology they use will just get abused by using other illicit tracking tech to link the cookies to uniquely identify a person anyway. So it will effectively make the popups unnecessary in any circumstances and still allow tracking for marketing and surveillance.
Some websites do it right. They have a “reject all” button, and that’s that. But then there are others where you have to deselect a whole shit load of checkboxes just to reject the fucking cookies. Sometimes they even have a “Pay to reject” shit. WTF. Ugh.
Ghostery is a fantastic Firefox plugin. No more stupid questions.
Just mandate a single button to reject all cookies and that the default be “reject all” if users skip the banner.
That doesn’t work, because rejecting all cookies means it’s impossible for the page to remember whether you skipped the banner… so the result is that the banner will always show.
The real solution would be to have this be a browser / HTML standard. Similar to other permissions managed by the browser (like permission to get camera/mic, permission to send notifications, etc)… then each browser can have a way to respond to these requests for permission that we can more fully control/customize… with a UI owned by the browser that is consistent across websites and with settings that can be remembered browser-side (so the request can be automatically denied if that’s what you want).
🍾 🎆
This is like when legislatures where made to ban plastic straws by the oil and plastic companies.
They knew the backlash would teach legislature to stop meddling in their affairs.just use consentomatic plugin
I can hear the lobbyists (both civil society and big tech, mainly the big tech ones) marching towards Brussels right now. This will be as heated as the Digital Markets Act.
Fighting is expected to flare up again next year, when the Commission wants to present an advertising-focused piece of legislation called the Digital Fairness Act. The executive has stated that the rulebook will help protect consumers online, including from manipulative design or unfair personalization.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You better us Consentomatic: https://consentomatic.au.dk/
Yes, but it use anyway the filters which already are in the adblocker (Easy List Cookie List and some others). I’ve this filters not only in the adblocker, also in the trackerblcker, so fhe cookie advice is bskipped, even in adblock whitelisted pages.
AFAIK these filters merely hide the pop ups, meaning you are agreeing to the tracking. Consent-o-matic on the other hand actually clicks “No” on them.
Correct me if I’m wrong
The filter block all cookies which can be desactivated in the consent menu, same do the consent-o-matic extension. The rest is anyway blocked by the tracking blocker, site permission settings in Vivaldi and, in my case, also by the filters in the Portmaster which I use. If you also use the Site Bleacher Extension (somewhat outdated, but still extreme effective), Cookie-autodelete, CookieBro or similar (removes automatically cookies, local storages, IndexedDBs, service workers, cache storages, filesystems and webSQLs after leaving the page), “you never has visited this page”. Means, there are enough manners out there which you can use to show them the middle finger and which make this cookie consent pop up useless.
