Cookie control always should have been a browser control. The legal route always should have been to force it to be built into browsers that provide sane defaults, and make it illegal to circumvent what the browser declares as far as fingerprinting etc.

any sort of elevation prompt, IF I allow them to be popups or an icon in a toolbar, should always be in the same place and not cover the page.

▲

IanCal 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

In a way it is - or rather it wouldn’t t change anything if we added more features.

The default is “no”. Without explicit consent you can’t do a lot of things.

You can’t have a default yes, because how can you agree with consent but automatically to everything?

And if it’s a no, are you saying you can’t ask a user for permission to use their data for a specific purpose?

And if you can ask, that’s what we have right now.

	▲	lukeschlather 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah I think it probably does mean you should be banned from asking in most cases. If you have a legitimate interest you don't need to ask. If you need to ask your interest is not actually legitimate and you know it.

▲

MassiveQuasar 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just enforce the GPC header... https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Reference/...

▲

nickff 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If people really cared, they’d choose browsers that have better control, but that’s obviously not a priority for them. Why do you think this sort of thing should be regulated to suit your preferences when most people don’t seem to agree with you?

▲

preg_match 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because everyone agrees - cookies banners are annoying and need to go away. Everyone is on the same page about this. The easiest way to make that happen is "move them into the browser".

How often do you get prompted for, say, secure DNS or HTTP? Almost never, because your browser has sane defaults and controls that. So, there you go.

▲

ablob 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think that's a stretch. People can care, but be unwilling to spend the time researching it or accept the trade offs that come with small browsers (which are often unsupported for applications you might want to use). There are many things someone might care about and at some point you have to prioritize. This topic in particular is practically a cold war where you always have to catch up on how things are, lest you loose it all. The required effort is disproportionate to the result.

P.S.: No true Scotsman spotted

▲

ClumsyPilot 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> If people really cared, they’d choose browsers that have better control

If people really cared, they’d chose reputable suppliers that sell non toxic food. If they are eating food with lead, they don’t care.

Don’t force your wordview on people through regulation

	▲	whstl 18 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Don’t force your wordview on people through regulation As opposed to enforcing your worldview with a lack of regulation? Because that's precisely what's happening, with the advertisement industry enforcing their worldview through lack of compliance.