Blame the web devs and their bad implementation of it. It’s really not that hard to get right (unless of course you don’t really want to comply).

Agree that getting the region wrong is sloppy.

But how does one avoid asking every time when cookies are blocked? What other implementation option is possible? This is what cookies are for.

> But how does one avoid asking every time when cookies are blocked? What other implementation option is possible? This is what cookies are for.

Local storage? Detect if cookies are blocked? Or, simply don't use cookies for purposes other than providing the service - which exempts you from the need to show the message?

> Or, simply don't use cookies for purposes other than providing the service

This, or as a minimum: Don't track people who has the DNT header set.

You mean the DNT header which is set by default in browsers? Then we can simplify your proposal to: "Don't track people"

You say this as if you're thinking that tracking is a normal thing to do to your users. I'm happy GDPR is fixing such misconceptions.

The only browser that set it by default was IE, and Microsoft ended that with Windows 10.

I've seen different Linux distros have it as default both for Firefox and Chromium as well.

But yes, the userbase for those is so small that we can assume that people with the header on simply don't want to be tracked.

Cookies don't matter. Personally identifiable information matters. Storing a "seen_cookie_notice=true" flag is fine (assuming the banner itself indicates that interacting with it will set the flag) as long as you don't use it for anything else.

The GP does not store cookies. How will the site store the seen_cookie_notice?

I wish browsers had a "do track" option which told every website: yes I consent, do what you want, just don't show me a popup. These cookies banners and GDPR popups have ruined the web.

So ads that follow you everywhere and inescapable email signup forms haven't done it, but "cookies banners and GDPR popups have ruined the web". Got it.

I know you are being sarcastic, but honestly yes. I'm not too bothered about being tracked and having targeted ads. It doesn't negatively affect my experience. My ad-blocker takes care of most of the ads anyway.

These intrusive popups and banners, on the other hand — especially the new post-GDPR in-your-face ones which I have to dismiss before I can even read a simple article — have ruined the user experience of the web. And my ad blocker doesn't seem to be able to block them.

There are lists that can block these popups, if that's really your main concern. Still, I think saying that they're the bigger problem than the pervasive tracking they try to protect their users against, including only casual users, is a bit much.

I can only speak for myself. The popuips are the bigger problem.

There's a lot of hand wringing about tracking but what harm does it actually do?

How is it easy to limit this? It's about how you treat EU citizens, not where people currently are.

How do you propose the website remembers your preference except through the use of a cookie? Cookies are the only way to keep client side state in a cross browser way. Keep in mind, cookies for non tracking purpose are allowed under the cookie law.

They should use localStorage. Unlike cookies, localStorage doesn't get transmitted to the server.

Certain security policies block localStorage, though. There doesn't seem to be a perfect place to store it.

Using a cookie that fits within the constraints imposed by the GDPR? It does have a list of criteria to which data it applies.

Only remember my preferences when I explicitly ask the site and opt-in to cookies?

That's the reason you see cookie-banners. They are your chance to opt-in.

Surely not, I see cookie banners at the very first chance they can throw them at me, way before I would need them for anything.

Kia ora! The "issue" here is that most sites which want to cater to worldwide audiences pretty much try to comply with influential legislation to stay on the good side. And GDPR/EU regs wield a big enough stick and come from a large enough region that you can't ignore them unless you want to block your site out completely to traffic coming from the EU. So they try and just do a worldwide rollout, irrespective of where you live. Of course, you can always implement this selectively but maybe more tricky to small and medium businesses, so they play and safe. Probably. I am speculating here.

The "EU" as a market is only important to the largest players or as an after thought once you have a solid footing in e.g. the US for one simple reason. The EU has too many languages so you can't just target the entire population in one shot like you can in single language even larger economy in America. Even if you wanted to target the entire EU, in my personal experience I can tell you that some web services work well in a place like Germany yet fail hard in France so most small to mid-level players are only going to go in places where they make the most money and it may be years before they ever end up in say Italy or the Netherlands. All that adds up to the EU regulations having a much smaller impact on most startups than you seem to believe. And that impact will be zero on the ones who look at the regulatory landscape as it exists now and just decide to stay out.

Edit: I see somebody chose to express disagreement via mouse rather than keyboard. Interesting.

As a European who has never been to an English-speaking country yet has always preferred English versions of everything (and all my friends are bi- or tri- (or more) lingual, reading something in English or in our mother tongues is a near-zero difference for us) I wonder what is the actual proportion of Europeans who can not be targeted by a service in English... I've heard learning English is not particularly popular among e.g. Italians but in Scandinavia and in France almost every "millennial" is more or less fluent in English and comfortable with it.

PS: I didn't downvote, I never do - I'm a downvote-hater :-)

Don't worry, it happens even when you allow cookies. Because a good part of the news sites will ask you again (in a couple of days/visits) if you have disallowed them. In case you accidentally clicked the wrong thing, I guess is their excuse. Accept button is a single up-front button, where as Rejects are hidden behind Manage... Needs to be cracked down on.