Again, then why does the EU do this? Clearly its not simply about erroding confidence in GDPR if the EU is literally doing it themselves.

Besides, you seem to be confusing something.

GDPR requires explicit explanation of each cookie, including these 1000s of trackers. It in no way bans these. This is just GDPR working as intended - some people want to have 1000s of trackers and GDPR makes them explain each one with a permission.

Maybe it would be nice to not have so many trackers. Maybe the EU should ban trackers. Maybe consumers should care about granular cookie permissions and stop using websites that have 1000s of them because its annoying as fuck. But some companies do prefer to have these trackers and it is required by GDPR to confront the user with the details and a control.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

pseudalopex 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Besides, you seem to be confusing something.

No. You asked How can you comply with the current requirements without cookie banners? Not How can you have trackers and comply with the current requirements without cookie banners? And don't use dark patterns would have answered this question as well.

▲

nonethewiser 4 hours ago | parent [-]

>No. You asked How can you comply with the current requirements without cookie banners?

Within the context of the discussion of if its malicious compliance or a natural consequence of the law. Obviously you could have a website with 0 cookies but thats not the world we live in. Maybe you were hoping GDPR would have the side effect of people using less cookies? It in no way requires that though.

I mean just think of it this way. Company A uses Scary Dark Pattern. EU makes regulation requiring information and consent from user for companies that use Scary Dark Pattern. Company A adds information and consent about Scary Dark Pattern.

Where is the malicious compliance? The EU never made tracker cookies or cookies over some amount illegal.

	▲	pseudalopex 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Within the context of the discussion of if its malicious compliance or a natural consequence of the law. You ignored I said don't use dark patterns answered the question you meant to ask. > Obviously you could have a website with 0 cookies but thats not the world we live in. Maybe you were hoping GDPR would have the side effect of people using less cookies? We were discussing trackers. Not cookies. > I mean just think of it this way. Company A uses Scary Dark Pattern. EU makes regulation requiring information and consent from user for companies that use Scary Dark Pattern. Company A adds information and consent about Scary Dark Pattern. I will not think of it using an unnecessary and incorrect analogy. And writing things like Scary Dark Pattern is childish and shows bad faith. > Where is the malicious compliance? The EU never made tracker cookies or cookies over some amount illegal. The malicious compliance is the dark patterns you ignored. Rejecting cookies was much more complicated than accepting them. Users were pressured to consent by constantly repeating banners. The “optimal user experience” and “accept and close” labels were misleading. These were ruled not compliance in fact.[1] But the companies knew it was malicious and thought it was compliance. Ignoring Do Not Track or Global Privacy Control and presenting a cookie banner is a dark pattern as well. [1] https://techgdpr.com/blog/data-protection-digest-3062025-the...