[flagged]
On many occasions it has been tremendously helpful to consumers when the EU stepped up and got in the way of companies doing as they please. Examples include capping phone roaming charges and mandating 24/7 free money transfers.
It is the US companies that do this. The worst cookie banners all come from US companies.
Examples: "Admiral" one of the biggest cookie banner company is from Florida. Their banner is absolutely annoying, made to trick you into consenting to be tracked.
Many USA healthcare sites, refuse to work entirely if you decline marketing tracking cookies (yes you read that correctly, healthcare sites kick you out if you want privacy about your health).
The crazy thing is, the law never said you must have a cookie banner, what the law says is: you are not allowed to spy on people, UNLESS they allow it explicitly. So USA companies that are not big on privacy for some reason, concluded that annoying cookie banners where is easy to accidentally give away your privacy is a great idea.
If your site doesn't track users, you don't need any banner, not even a disclaimer.
Just don't spy on people, and that is it. I wonder how people from USA can still claim with a straight face they are "the land of the free", when they aren't free to not be spied upon (by their own government even, as Snowden proved).
It wastes everyone's time. They're going to track regardless.
The web is definitely worse today, post cookie prompts.
So the idea clearly wasn’t all that bad. IMO the problem was that the EU law left it up to websites to police cookies, but it should be part of the browser instead — just like Apple’s tracker permission dialog for iOS native apps is part of the operating system.
Only websites which abuse personal data have to do it. Why are you angry at the legislation and not at terribly designed websites?