Other than the silly design, the website's cookie banner is actively malicious. It proclaims to be legally required and directly blames the President of the European Commission. If Posthog is being truthful about its cookie usage, the cookie banner is in fact not legally required. Consent banners are only required if you're trying to do individual user tracking or collecting personally identifying data; technical cookies like session storage do not require a banner. That they then chose to include a cookie banner anyways, with explicit blame, is an act of propaganda clearly intended to cause unnecessary consent banner fatigue and weaken support for the GDPR.

▲

vanschelven an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I don't have a cookie banner on _my_ website for exactly this reason, but I have to admit some people have asked my if it isn't suspicious that I don't. Perhaps that's what they're trying to avoid here? (that would be the positive reading)

▲

lotyrin an hour ago | parent [-]

Maybe you need a "why I don't have a banner" banner.

	▲	vanschelven an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I think that's what Posthog might be trying but as per the above there may be a fine line between funny and annoying and/or between useful and useless. or maybe I just missed your sarcasm

▲

dkdcio 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree it’s stupid but wouldn’t ascribe intent without more information