Make your cookies banner have equal "Accept All" and "Reject All" buttons, and I'll probably Accept All.

Bury rejection under a fucking "Manage Cookies" button and I will go out of my way to disable/opt out of every fucking one of them.

Also why the fuck would rejecting all take "a few minutes" but accepting be instantaneous?

Fucking hell.

Perfectly engineered to piss you off, making you just accept your fate next time

There shall be law stating you should provide a big button in the same dialog to provide minimum data.

I blame inconsistent laws

GDPR requires you opt-in
CCPA requires you opt-out

Marketing requires you not get anywhere near that opt-out because they have to justify their paycheck with your data.

🤷‍♂️ how could this possibly end well for anyone?

@molaram I agree, client side cookies are necessary small evil compared to demonic tracking on server side.

Funny thing is, i want to accept them everywhere, but the reject all button is the one my mouse moves to automatically. Or even worse: the "select 150 checkboxes of which cookies you want and which not". These buttons are always misplaced, ugly and have the wrong colors for my intuition.

I always just approve all, because all cookies are blocked by default in browser extension.
If something doesn't work properly due to missing cookie i may reconsider allowing it in the extension.

Ideally, we would have some sort of browser setting that told the website when we visit it that we opt out of everything.

Maybe it could even be part of HTTP, and we could write that information into the header.
And we could call it something like "do-not-track" :)

@C0D4 and opt out sucks by principle though
That part of EU regulations makes sense I would say

@LotsOfCaffeine it's a shame it never took hold and is being deprecated

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US...

I prefer the opt-in one, business prefer opt-out, but to have both defeats the purpose.

Funny thing, it is a requirement created by the law itself.

Accepting all is easy, but if you reject stuff it doesn't really make sense to allow you to reject all in one go, because some of the thing you will reject are there to give you a better experience, target better ads to you or both.

So allowing you to reject all hurts noth you and the business.

I agree it can be better engineered tho.

@LotsOfCaffeine except cookies are not only for tracking, some sites use them for configuration too.

Anyway, guys check out the crumbs extension to get better privacy and cookie handling.
Https://Crumbs.org

PLOT TWIST: It's still processing

@mundo03 yeah, I think the EU regulations differ between needed cookies like session cookies, ones for preferences and ones for tracking/marketing

@LotsOfCaffeine that would be extremely difficult to enforce, maybe that is why do not track doesn't work

@mundo03 the EU is already enforcing that, I'm just not 100% certain on the details

I would love a one setting flip solution for all pages ever, but since there's money to be made that probably won't happen.
Though I'm sure you could make it work with a browser extension.

@LotsOfCaffeine rhey enforce it by law, not technically. They rely on whistleblowers and deliver fines, that is the whole magic.

About extensions, check crumbs.org

@mundo03 I saw the comment with crumbs org
It said it was made by the guys from adblock plus and uh, didn't they go full "pay us and we won't block your ads" some time ago?

I'm not sure anymore, I'll give crumbs a read tomorrow

@LotsOfCaffeine
Nope, I work there.
It is more of a "clean up your ads, like no animation, less placements, size limits, etc and we'll take a share of your revenue, also the user can disable the ads"

The crumbs one has no relation to that anyway, it is not an adblocker, it is a privacy protection thing, like sandboxing cookies, routes requests through a proxy, disables cookie messages, a new called email relay.

I use adblock plus with everything blocked + crumbs.

You could use ublock origin + crumbs.

This is no commercial :D