I think this is a good demonstration of why companies generally do choose to stick with cookie banners even though they’re annoying.
Why are they annoying?
Some websites—rare, delicate lotus flowers—bother me with a small, horizontal banner on the bottom of the page. When I click “accept”, it actually goes away forever on that browser for that website.
While many others, istead, slap a bulky framed message in the middle of the page. Possibly 2-4 seconds after most of the loading, just to interrupt my initial interactions with the page in the most annoying way possible.
Is there a reason for that? Is it out of control overconservative legal worry?
They are annoying if you don’t just accept the cookies. I always reject all non-essential. Typically that is a three-click process. It’s annoying when it’s the fifth site in a row.
Is there a reason for that? Is it out of control overconservative legal worry?
Raging against the tyrannical bureaucrats telling them what they can and can’t include on their own website by including the banner in the most annoying way possible? Kinda like the ¢10 plastic bag tax at grocery checkouts that tells the customer exactly why they have to pay the tax and makes them count out how many bags they’ve used.
I think this is unlikely, because it is not in a website interest to annoy its users, and they are not otherwise obtaining something from bigger banners.
Why are they annoying?
Some websites—rare, delicate lotus flowers—bother me with a small, horizontal banner on the bottom of the page. When I click “accept”, it actually goes away forever on that browser for that website.
While many others, istead, slap a bulky framed message in the middle of the page. Possibly 2-4 seconds after most of the loading, just to interrupt my initial interactions with the page in the most annoying way possible.
Is there a reason for that? Is it out of control overconservative legal worry?
They are annoying if you don’t just accept the cookies. I always reject all non-essential. Typically that is a three-click process. It’s annoying when it’s the fifth site in a row.
I’ve found it easiest to just add a Ublock rule (if ublock missed it) or enable AKS on that site, and never need to see them again.
Raging against the tyrannical bureaucrats telling them what they can and can’t include on their own website by including the banner in the most annoying way possible? Kinda like the ¢10 plastic bag tax at grocery checkouts that tells the customer exactly why they have to pay the tax and makes them count out how many bags they’ve used.
I think this is unlikely, because it is not in a website interest to annoy its users, and they are not otherwise obtaining something from bigger banners.
It is if the user feels that annoyance towards the regulator instead of the website developer