I have never clicked "accept" on a cookie banner, as a matter of principle; I zap them away with uBlock Origin. Should the plague of age verification reach my jurisdiction, I'm sure I will handle it in like fashion.

▲

RankingMember 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Zapping only works if the site lets you continue/pull content without verification.

▲

marssaxman 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I expect I'll need to employ some other technical means of circumvention, but the principle of refusing to engage with the thing on its own terms will remain the same.

▲

kube-system 4 hours ago | parent [-]

These things are integrated into the authentication systems of these services. They aren't implemented client side. Refusing to engage with them means you cannot use the service.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

BanAntiVaxxers 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Then it wasn't meant to be. Let it go.

	▲	pixl97 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Fun and games until your government makes getting access to the internet at all work that way.
	▲	RankingMember 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The problem there is when it's inescapable, on every site.

▲

antonvs 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The difference is that the cookie banner is not a gate. uBlock Origin is unlikely to be able to satisfy a website about your age without submitting the info that the site expects. (Assuming the age check has any teeth at all.) You're unlikely to be able to continue as usual if these kinds of measures become ubiquitous.

▲

goopypoop 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

ignoring the banner is the same as agreeing to all the opt-out "legitimate interest" shit