Ask HN: Why don't they remove the cookies (and hence the banners)
12 comments
Likely metrics and tracking of traffic flow (origin, dest, etc.)
You are asking the question from the wrong side.
The right side is - why those bureaucrats are so stupid, short sighted and people hating that we have the frustrating banners even on harmless websites.
The right side is - why those bureaucrats are so stupid, short sighted and people hating that we have the frustrating banners even on harmless websites.
Nope. It's the companies. https://www.bitecode.dev/p/there-is-no-eu-cookie-banner-law
If a law can not be properly enforced, especially without having poor consequences for the majority of people, then it's a bad law.
Nope.
It's useless bureaucrats that scare companies so they don't want to waste time and money figuring out all the nuances and put themselves at risk of getting sued.
It's useless bureaucrats that scare companies so they don't want to waste time and money figuring out all the nuances and put themselves at risk of getting sued.
We can’t change the bureaucrats but I would expect private companies to have more common sense and customer focus to avoid these shenanigans
I don't use a single cookie in my landing pages or product, but I still have the cookie banner because so many of the marketing tools track through cookies.
Removing cookies would reset consent and preferences, violating regulations and frustrating users with repeated banners
Analytics, marketing, etc.
User-preference cookies (e.g. light mode vs dark mode) are not "strictly necessary", and therefore probably still require consent under GDPR
But why do agencies, municipalities, (government) railways or other non-ads driven websites need to have cookies, and hence the frustrating banners?
My hypothesis is they want to be "better safe than sorry" but maybe there are real marketing purposes behind it?
some examples: https://www.mckinsey.com https://www.london.gov.uk https://www.ns.nl (Dutch railways) https://www.britishmuseum.org