Mostly yes, except it is missing some important features: HN does not have a cookie banner in the EU, and it does not have an unsubscribe functionality that erases all your posts (right to be forgotten).
Please stop perpetuating the myth that good actors require cookie banners.
EU/non-EU citizen here. This is a well meaning regulation. However, it is difficult to implement technically. How do you structure a conversation where a critical participant has said they want to be forgotten. Is it enough - practically, ethically/morally, legally - to change the byline on their posts? What if there was additional identifying information? Can you hack the conversation to pieces without destroying the experience for others? What about historical reference?
As a citizen in any society, in general, I believe that people should stand by their behavior and its consequences. That's what being an adult is. It's also positive to have spaces without or with reduced surveillance, but retroactively removing public discussion is quite another thing. If we muffle that, what do we have left? Certainly not a strong basis for public thought, historical inquiry, or truth.
We've also learned that any legal loophole is abused by PR companies for rich people/companies with expensive lawyers. I fear that adding this sort of thing outside the EU would quickly lead to systemic abuse.
A cookie banner is only needed it there are extra cookies for other purposes other than site-functionality, or are collected by third party sites/scripts.
SO many sites threw up the banner by default when the law was initially brought it because it was easier then trying to work out if it was needed or not.