In theory yes, in practice “uh-huh.”

Bruh

and then every time you visit that one good news site, you have to go through their cookie banner each time. That or install a cookie-denying addon and hope that they don’t sellout or sell your data.

Still doesn’t get rid of the popup, for that I use ublock origin.

Sounds like a job for the Mullvad browser, since that clears cookies on every restart by default.

No? If you accept tracking while on the page, this has consequences on your current session

Sadly that is not an option for firefox on android yet (while it is on desktop), the only choises you are left with are:

• Use ff focus that completely resets the browser deleting every cookie in the process
• Use normal ff and:

1. Just accept that you have to deal with cookies and care to carefully select Reject on every banner
2. Turn on delete data on “exit button press” (which sadly deletes everything again, with no possibility to whitelist some websites).

That said, i believe Firefox should have (even on android) their “total cookie protection” thing which puts them in separate containers for each domain, so you are somewhat protected by cookie cross-tracking, but i would still prefer to delete most of them at close.

Reject all is actually you agreeing on the legitimate interests loophole so this is also problematic.

I used to rely on Consent-O-Matic a lot, but I’m somewhat uncomfortable by the fact that the extension has full access to all web page content. I mean I understand why, but I’m still uncomfortable with it. In the end I ended up uninstalling it because it broke some sites so that they wouldn’t load at all, or got stuck into an infinite reload loop. On majority of cases it works alright though.

Oh alr thank you

which part is the (false) antecedent, and which part is the statement?

It is.

How is it nonsense?

The EU law is that the reject all should be exactly as easy as the accept all button. 1 extra click, however minor of an inconvenience it is, is extra effort. And therefore strictly speaking in violation of the law.

Nothing will ever happen but it’s valid criticism.

You underestimate people’s laziness and their burn out. An extra click to reject all is an extra click people won’t bother with. I literally used to go all the extra steps to reject these things, even when a reject all button was not provided. Plus I’ve found that sometimes the reject all button doesn’t actually reject all, and there are a few hidden settings still left to uncheck. It’s ridiculous. It should be 1 click, just like hitting accept is 1 click. The ease of use should be 1:1. I was getting burned out by those extra clicks and all that manual checking that took like 20s-2mins of my time. That adds up. All to read a single paragraph on some website? Bruh. Used to do this until I discovered ublock origin has settings that can be used to block cookie consent forms.

To you, one extra click is no big deal, like a paper cut of inconvenience. To me, it’s the thousandth papercut I’ve received. I am tired of it.

Big oof here. Maybe make sure you understand what you’re talking about before criticizing others?

Why did you edit your comment? At least own it.

Exactly - which would likely be a persistent necessary cookie on most websites.

Cookies are very small snippets of code that have a specific purpose. Making a one-size-fits-all cookie would make them complicated and much harder to track - which goes against the point of a cookie. Also, cookies are often independent of each other because they are from different providers/different tools. Having a one-size-fits-all cookie would also present a security hazard and make laws similar to GDPR about cookie tracking difficult to implement. An example of a tool that actually does use one cookie is Adobe’s Marketo. You can read some more about them here. https://termly.io/resources/articles/types-of-internet-cookies/

Same thing that’s preventing them from ignoring your choices or not offering them in the first place: nothing technical; it’s all up to the legal system.

I’m not sure how sites generally do it, but from my web dev experience in the past, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is actually implemented as one giant cookie. Iirc cookies are attached to domains and one domain can’t access another’s cookies. So if they are sharing the data on their end, I’d guess it is one big cookie. If they have their site set up to make the clients share the data themselves, I’d guess there’s a cookie for each partner’s domain.

It’s even possible that the information is shared without using actual cookies at all, since data can be sent to servers using the http get request. If you see ? in the url, everything after that is a list of arguments and values… Though the entire URL (after the domain, which maps it to that server) is data and doesn’t have to map to a directory structure and file on a server. Maybe this falls under the umbrella of “cookie” despite technically not being a cookie.

Or maybe it’s a loophole where the legislation focused on just cookies and falls back to these methods. Probably not, because if it’s done on the client side, it would be easy to detect by anyone who knows how to look. But who knows what’s going on on the server side of things?

Edit: my knowledge here is dated and outside of my specializations, so consider this more technically informed speculation than necessarily applicable to how things generally work. I say this because I see another comment came in while I was writing this that contradicts mine about a giant cookie being technically possible. My own use of cookies was to store a session id so that php could find the data that was being stored server side that was necessary for site functionality (like storing logged in state, user id, and other internal stuff we don’t want users being able to change by editing a cookie). They worked like maps iirc where you just give them key:value pairs, thus could store an arbitrary amount of data.

😮🤔 gotta do that as well

I push away the plate and slap the butler