"Accept all" always makes it go away immediately.

Some variant on "reject" takes more effort like 70% of the time. Which is on purpose, of course. The ones that aren't maliciously-complying have a "necessary only" button that insta-closes it, but tons pretend that you might want to allow some spying but not all of it and make you go through another screen if you don't just "accept all".

> To me, having a browser setting for cookies is the only sane way to handle this, it's surprising that this was not considered from the beginning.

Then it'd be possible to default it to "nope" (Firefox, and perhaps Safari, might do this) or to allow a "never, anywhere" setting the first time the question is asked, and malware and spyware vendors know that'd mean a much larger proportion of denials.

▲

jackson1442 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"necessary only" also tends to have a malicious compliance aspect where they don't store a cookie recording your preference and show the banner on every single page until you click accept.

▲

remus 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Perhaps I am overly optimistic in thinking this is just incompetence.

▲

tikhonj an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Well, maybe it is... but then the PM never prioritizes testing or fixing the problem. They're not intentionally trying to get more people to accept cookies, it's just that there are always more important features to build and fires to fight, and fixing the cookie banner won't move any of the metrics executives are breathing down their necks about, and it won't look good in the perf packet...

But of course, designing the system that pushes people to make this sort of decision was absolutely intentional.

So even when it's incompetence, it's still malicious, just in a way that obscures the explicit decision-making that led to the result.

▲

smallmancontrov an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, you are. The legislative process around EPD/EPR fully anticipated the malicious compliance and it became a back-and-forth political football long before anything was passed. The legislators were never dumb and the corporations were always greedy+powerful.

	▲	whstl an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I had one of the providers recommending us that we leave the "Decline All" button out of Europe, since it's not widely prosecuted, buy recommended that we add it to California, since chances are slimmer. Naturally in a camera meeting with a "don't tell anyone we said that" appended right before. The marketing people in the meeting were very angry that California was "doing it to them".

▲

PunchyHamster 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

which they can be sued for as that's not compliant way to handle it. Just that nobody bothers