Is it just me who reads this wrong or everyone else?
The way I read this cookie "consent" banners are exposed as worthless so web sites should be no better off using them compared to not using them.
The way I read this cookie "consent" banners are exposed as worthless so web sites should be no better off using them compared to not using them.
The banner/popup has to say "Check this checkbox to continue with third party cookies, otherwise just continue without". (checkbox has to be unchecked at first)
Or "Click [this button] to visit with third party cookies or [this button] to visit without" (buttons have to be the same size).
But yes - in this form banners and popup present an annoyance to the user AND very few will actually consent (if they understand the question). So they will be worthless for the site owner, which is a good thing because no one likes these banners.
You can do basic user statistics without active tracking and for technical cookies the banners (nor any other form of consents) is necessary.
The ad industry (Google & co) have pushed these user-hostile banners, it's not a feature of the law.