The European Commission aims to reform the EU’s cookie consent rules that have cluttered websites with intrusive banners asking for permission to track user data[1]. The initiative seeks to streamline data protection while maintaining privacy safeguards through centralized consent mechanisms[1:1].

Cookie consent banners emerged from the ePrivacy Directive (Cookie Law) and GDPR requirements, which mandate websites obtain explicit user permission before collecting non-essential data through cookies[2]. Current rules have led to widespread implementation of pop-up notices that interrupt user experience and often employ confusing interfaces.

The proposed changes reflect growing recognition that the existing approach has “messed up the internet” while failing to provide meaningful privacy protection[1:2]. Rather than requiring individual consent on every website, the Commission is exploring solutions like centralized consent management to reduce banner fatigue while preserving user privacy rights.


  1. Ground News - Europe’s cookie law messed up the internet. Brussels wants to fix it. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. Transcend - Cookie Consent Banner Best Practices: Optimizing Your Consent Management Experience ↩︎

  • jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    Instead, ban the collection of non-essential data, and also ban the targeting of advertisements based on user profiles/history

    Only select advertisements to display based on the immediate context, exactly like printed newspapers and magazines

    • Zerush@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      27 days ago

      That is the right way, ads are a legit manner to create incommings if they are contextual, but not if they are abusive and surveillance based, tracking and logging the user activity. As in YT, it’s not the problem to have ads in the page or as banner at the border of an video, but it is, that the interrupt an conciert documental with several no scippable long ads, popups to use Premium, clickbaits and other crap, which serve nobody, less the author. In this case using an adblocker is mere selfdefense and legit to cut this crap and nags. A good manner is eg. how Bandcamp do it, there you can freely listen almost every song or album, without ads, and there you can buy and download it when you want, paying direct to the artist and Bandcamp an revenue. Or as Vivaldi does, using afiliate links and search engines added by default, which pay an revenue to Vivaldi, if the user use these, who is free to delete those which he don’t use. These and similar methodes are a legit and ethical way to create incommings, without putting in risk the right of privacy of the user, selling his data.

  • imdc@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    27 days ago

    Think they can ban the “pay, or let us track you” tactic I’ve been seeing pooping up too? That’s fucking extortion.

      • imdc@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        27 days ago

        If extortion is the honest way to do something, a bigger step back is needed.

        • SliceableObstacle@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          Français
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          27 days ago

          I’d rather not go to a website because I won’t pay, than refuse their cookies and have them track me anyway through “legitimate reason”.

          If you feel extorted you may need to get off the internet and breathe some fresh air. I’m sure you can live juste fine without going to those extorting website.

          Quality cost money to produce. If we want to prevent the massive enshitification we may have to question the way we consume internet and re-think the “everything is free” mantra.

        • 3abas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          27 days ago

          Extortion is a stretch… They provide content or service for a price, the price is either money you pay or money advertisers pay…

          I would not use those sites, but that’s my decision, they aren’t twisting my arm to force me to read their shitty articles…

  • PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    26 days ago

    Just mandate a single button to reject all cookies and that the default be “reject all” if users skip the banner.

    • Ferk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      26 days ago

      That doesn’t work, because rejecting all cookies means it’s impossible for the page to remember whether you skipped the banner… so the result is that the banner will always show.

      The real solution would be to have this be a browser / HTML standard. Similar to other permissions managed by the browser (like permission to get camera/mic, permission to send notifications, etc)… then each browser can have a way to respond to these requests for permission that we can more fully control/customize… with a UI owned by the browser that is consistent across websites and with settings that can be remembered browser-side (so the request can be automatically denied if that’s what you want).

  • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    26 days ago

    This is like when legislatures where made to ban plastic straws by the oil and plastic companies.
    They knew the backlash would teach legislature to stop meddling in their affairs.

  • Jaberw0cky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    24 days ago

    Just use Ghostery with never consent? I hardly ever see those things. Other extensions are available.