Forgive me for immediately untrusting you on the matter because the reality distortion field must be strong. Cookie banners are an absolute crystal clear evil and there is absolutely no leeway for a different opinion here.
(Tracking is also an undisputed evil)
> Consent banners don't have to be awful, I promise.
False.
They absolutely have to be awful because that's the whole premise of the law. You have to get user's consent. In order to force the user to make a choice you have to make it more annoying than it is annoying to read your content while ignoring the popup. The only way to conform to the law is to make users' experience on your website miserable.
> true at a certain (small) scale, when you have hundreds of millions [...] this is impractical.
True.
However it is also impractical to actually use the consent dialog. Because all the trackers and tools that different teams are adding to the site - they have to communicate with the cookie popup somehow and no living programmer would be bothered to even think about it. Nothing good for the world comes out of presenting and respecting the cookie popup ().
Thus I see fake cookie consent popups that are actually ignoring users' choices.
() On my site I do my best to respect the user's choice and do NOT track them once they hopefully reject.
Why are you tracking when it's an undisputed evil? Reality distortion indeed.
Is getting consent interruptive? yes. Is that worse than not getting consent? Also yes.
Since you don't appear to want to give up the undisputed evil of tracking, then consent is what's left to you. You've made the same choice as everyone else.
I'd encourage you to respect GPC and DNT, so the (roughly 20%, depending on audience) of users that have it enabled can automatically opt out of your tracking without the "crystal clear evil" of a consent banner. Remember that in California you need to show some display that their consent choices have been observed.
> Why are you tracking when it's an undisputed evil?
Not that tracking. You know what I mean: tracking by ad networks and international corporations.
We are tracking events (users clicked on the button) in an anonymous fashion. We do not collect PII. We do not store IPs. We do not correlate behaviors with user ids. We simply track how many people clicked the button and on what page. This is hardly privacy invasive at all.
> Is getting consent interruptive? yes. Is that worse than not getting consent? Also yes.
I'm not entirely sure about the latter. First of all, I don't believe in the slightest that the site will respect my choice. Second, even if the site itself does, the ad network present on the site, definitely will track me no matter what.
In other words, consent banners are cargo cult, do not work in practice and are a net negative for the world.
> DNT
It was an obvious idea but didn't work, unfortunately due to the fact that ad network absolutely have to look down users' ass and they will not cease this practice.
> users that have it enabled can automatically opt out of your tracking
They can install adblock and wholesale opt out of all the bullshit, including insane cookie consent banners.
> Remember that in California you need
My business is not California or US based and thus I don't have to implement the vast variety of of cargo cult laws in existence.
Forgive me for immediately untrusting you on the matter because the reality distortion field must be strong. Cookie banners are an absolute crystal clear evil and there is absolutely no leeway for a different opinion here.
(Tracking is also an undisputed evil)
> Consent banners don't have to be awful, I promise.
False.
They absolutely have to be awful because that's the whole premise of the law. You have to get user's consent. In order to force the user to make a choice you have to make it more annoying than it is annoying to read your content while ignoring the popup. The only way to conform to the law is to make users' experience on your website miserable.
> true at a certain (small) scale, when you have hundreds of millions [...] this is impractical.
True.
However it is also impractical to actually use the consent dialog. Because all the trackers and tools that different teams are adding to the site - they have to communicate with the cookie popup somehow and no living programmer would be bothered to even think about it. Nothing good for the world comes out of presenting and respecting the cookie popup ().
Thus I see fake cookie consent popups that are actually ignoring users' choices.
() On my site I do my best to respect the user's choice and do NOT track them once they hopefully reject.