"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 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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

▲

tikhonj 41 minutes 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 25 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

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