That reasoning isn't wrong, though it seems ridiculous when looked at with techie-brain. But if there is a standard expectation of what serious company websites are like, it makes business sense to look like that too. It's like dressing up appropriately to cultural expectations. You can deviate somewhat but you have to strategically spend your weirdness points.
How nice of the EU to have determined for the rest of the world that the “cultural expectation” should be that every business do the design equivalent of wearing clown makeup.
Companies could stop selling and storing your data. They could only use cookies when absolutely essential. They could use lots of kinds of UX.
This is the equivalent of businesses who put a big visible "20% the state says we have to give our employees healthcare" fee on their bill to throw a hissy fit and hope customers get angry at the government for protecting them instead of the business for exploiting them.
it's basically malicious compliance. They're supposed to be super annoying ... Instead of complying, they choose this obnoxious practice so they could continue ... monitoring every action a visitor does.
You don't need a cookie banner to be allowed to create Cookies. You only need them if you're using them for something like tracking. [1]
Regulators didn't enforce cookie banners. Cookie banners are a form of malicious compliance. When you complain about them, you are doing the lobbying work of ad companies for free. The correct solution is to just not spy on people, and the problem is that the EU didn't go far enough and just ban the behavior altogether. [2]
Cookie pops are malicious compliance to regulations that legitimately protect consumers. You’ve cherry picked one bad side effect to throw out all the ways the EU is way ahead of anyone else in protecting consumers [3]
Why does static site of Europe's parliament need big cookie banner? Or is that the parliament which created this law doesn't know what you know or they are doing "malicious compliance".
I know the technical reason. I was contesting the GP's comment that most site display banner "Instead of complying". Most website needs basic tracking and there is nothing wrong in it.
We are just conditioned to see it without difference in basic tracking and tracking all your clicks across site and selling it to advertisers.
Because they use a commercial service (AT Internet) for analytics and visitor tracking as stated in their cookies policy and cookie inventory. This information is readily available through the cookie banner.
You can comply with the law without banners and dark pattern defaults. These businesses are maliciously complying by making things more obnoxious and painful than they need to be.
A comparison would be a store who was angry the law says you have to be 21 to buy alcohol and starts requesting everyone, even people not buying alcohol, to show ID or be kicked out. That's not a bad law, that's a bad business maliciously complying.
Let me know when you find a User Agent that can smack a CEO over the head with a virtual cluebat whenever he sells a list of email addresses that signed up to his site, because that's what the regulation is about and I certainly don't see how a UA could enforce it.
The user agent can refuse to store cookies, but it can't do much against supercookies (cookie-like features not knowingly implemented by the user agent programmers) or fingerprinting: you need something like legislation to curb practices like that.
I don't care about this. I explained why for an individual business trying to project seriousness, it makes sense to adopt a banner in the current environment. I didn't say it's nice of the EU or anything of the sort. It's an incentive pressure that exists on an individual company in the current situation. That's all I said.
It's more like a cultural expectation that business do shady things and the "clown makeup" is a compromise that government found between making those shady things illegal (utopia) and don't intervene at all and let the corporations set their rules (dystopia).
It's like those warnings in cigarettes packages saying they will kill you. I know cigarettes are bad, but the warnings also make me believe there's at least "some" control in how bad they are. Now if I buy one without the warnings, I will worry those in particular are extra-shady and likely to kill me even faster.
Oh how I miss those warnings. Nowadays the packages are covered in graphic body horror pictures. And there's no branding on them any more, just white text on a black background, so I have to carefully check that the illiterate teenagers at the store gives me the correct ones.
