Back

A reminder that obnoxious, blocking cookie consent banners are not required by law but are there because tech companies had a massive tantrum at being prevented from tracking the bejesus out of you by default.. They don't need to be annoying or intrusive, companies can absolutely choose not to track, to track less, or make the consent experience easier, they choose not to

@sue Always depends on the website. For news sites and blogs such banners should not be required at all except they want to track users.

For things like wikis or forum threads... well, as soon as you deal with accounts, you need at least one cookie.

@Colman @sue It's technically not required. Just makes your web page cumbersome to use. It still tracks a user and therefore requires detailed information about it which the banner is for.

@thejackimonster @Colman @sue

No, the banner isn't required for cookies required for the functioning of your website. You can have a separate section detailing your use of cookies.

8 years of GDPR and you still haven't bothered to learn a single thing about it

@dmitriid @Colman @sue How is it required for functioning when I can read wiki pages just fine without it?

@thejackimonster @Colman @sue

If a cookie is required for the functioning of your website, then no banner is needed.

If it is not required, and/or it collects more information than is needed, and/or is used for tracking, then you must obtain consent from the user using clear language, with default being "opt-out".

It's that easy.

@dmitriid @Colman @sue Yeah and on technical level of the implementation that is extremely unclear because an account can be optional for some features and required for others.

@thejackimonster @Colman @sue

There's nothing unclear. You just literally described the requirements.

No idea where "account" came from, but ok.

Edit: argh. The whole conversation started with accounts, January 1st isn't kind to my brain