"10 Seconds" needs addition - even if site opens in 0.1 second and shows cookie management options, in my mind it will take 10 seconds to get rid of it and I close the site. So it's often not about actual speed, but speed "from my experiance".
--
[1] which really means “we see your preference not to be stalked, but fuck you and your silly preferences”
[2] if I see the admiral³ logo in a consent pop-over my time on the site is ~0.1s as I know my choice is “uncheck literally hundreds of boxes as there is no say-no-to-all single click, accept hundreds of 3rd parties might track me, or leave”.
[3] not an issue with this site, their opt-out seem relatively sane though I did need to click a few times to make sure “legitimate interest” wasn't hidden in nested minimised content.
And now it’s illegal to not have a popup. Every site is legally obligated to hit every user with one of the all-time most hated UX experiences ever.
It absolutely isn't. You, along with many others, are falling for the advertising industries attempts to turn you against privacy regulations by claiming the regulations force them to inconvenience you.
In fact a great many of the pop-us (the vast majority) are actually in breach, deliberately so, because they make it far more work to opt out than to opt in.
If all you track by default is tokens required for correct functioning of the site (session tokens and such) then you do not need a pop-up at all.
IIRC all that is stipulated in the EU regs, for instance, WRT cookies and other tracking tech is the ability to opt-out should be as easy as the ability to opt in, it should not be auto-opt-in, you can opt-out later if you do opt-in, and you should be properly informed about what you are opting into.
The bad UX patterns making it time-consuming, confusing, or otherwise unpleasant, to opt-out are actually against the spirit of the law (perhaps even the letter of the law) but unfortunately it is not proving really practical to enforce.
The multitude of information stored about us is used for far more than just selling too, as per reports like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35028107 so I also object on principal as well as for selfish comfort reasons. I have nothing to hide in that regard now, so nothing to fear, but I know people who would do if similar law covered where we live, and people who did have things to hide that this sort of thing would have been a danger to when other crappy laws were in force (people who were homosexual when it was still effectively illegal to be for instance), and who is to say some other law might pop up later which means I might want to hide something I now can't because every advertiser on the planet knows it and can be very easily made to reveal it?
> because I find GDPR unconscionable
From this I surmise that you do not understand GDPR and related legislation, and have fallen for the advertising industries attempts to turn you against such regulations by making you believe they are forced by them to inconvenience you.
I'm familiar with it. I fundamentally disagree with its assumptions on rights.
If you send me a letter, you shouldn't be able to compel me to shred it. If you come into my shop with a clear exoectation of security surveillance, the video should be mine entirely.
If you send my server your IP, that's my information now, and you shouldn't be able to compel me to delete it. But somehow this backwards concept of ownership has gotten popular where every individual is the perpetual tyrant of any information they leave in the world as they go through it. They can tell me to forget something they told me and now various governments will try to punish me if I don't agree to the façade. 1984 comparisons might be a cliché but this fits the memory hole analogy all too well.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/4/21/23035289/google-reject-al...
> The EU needs to clarify their legislation
No, from what I understand, the law is already clear that “reject all” must be as easy as “accept all”. Those who doesn’t show this are already breaking the law.
> but for now they’ve made the internet objectively worse for everyone.
No, the companies with cookie banner web sites did that.
> No, the companies with cookie banner web sites did that.
The companies are doing exactly what they need to do to stay in compliance while making sure their business is minimally impacted as possible.
That would be a bad law, with too many details that will be wrong on many contexts.
Stop making excuses to people that are trying to fuck you.
The legislation needs to be opt out by default with a non obtrusive request to opt in. These aren’t players in good faith so why indulge them in legislation.
Guess what, the GDPR doesn't allow that either.
The legislation is already clear, it should be as easy to opt-in as to opt-out. People/businesses didn't seem to get it, but more and more they are starting to realize it. Also, they don't want to be caught once fines starts being handed out.
"Objectively" should mean objectively, just because it doesn't fit with how you (or your employer) think the internet should work, doesn't mean that's what everyone thinks. I'm quite happy that websites have to disclose what they are doing and ask for permission. They could also not track me and not having to ask for any permission, but not many websites chose to act like that, so nice to get the heads up.