Kill The Cookie Banner

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

EU efforts to curb online tracking via consent rules have produced the now-ubiquitous cookie banner, which many users find intrusive and easy to game with dark patterns. Commenters debate a proposed fix: legally binding, browser-level privacy signals (a successor to “Do Not Track”) that would let users set tracking preferences once instead of per site, but note that ad-tech companies and some publishers are lobbying hard against it because targeted ads remain highly profitable. Much of the exchange centers on whether regulation should simply outlaw invasive tracking altogether, how to enforce any new standard effectively, and whether the current regime has unintentionally strengthened dominant platforms while burdening smaller sites and users.

Overall sentiment about cookie banners

  • Widely viewed as a major usability annoyance and “malicious compliance” with EU rules.
  • Many users admit they just hit “Accept all” to get to content, especially when “Reject” is hidden, slower, or requires multiple clicks.
  • Some defend banners as useful signals: if a site shows one, it probably wants to track you; sites that don’t track don’t need one.

Cookies vs. tracking and what the law actually covers

  • Multiple commenters stress: the law is about tracking and processing personal data, not cookies per se.
  • Functional/session cookies (e.g., login, cart, user-chosen preferences) generally don’t require consent; invasive analytics, cross-site tracking, and third-party pixels do.
  • Several note that many sites deploy a banner “just to be safe” or because they use opaque third-party scripts and don’t really know what’s happening.

Browser-level preference signals

  • Strong support for a browser- or device-level setting that expresses privacy preferences once (successor to Do Not Track / GPC).
  • Key difference from old DNT: this time it would be legally binding. Ignoring it would be a violation, not just bad manners.
  • Skeptics recall DNT’s failure, and worry sites will still prompt for exceptions (“reconfigure your browser to accept tracking or pay”).

Ads, revenue, and web sustainability

  • Disagreement on how essential targeted tracking is:
    • One side: efficient ad revenue requires user-level tracking; banning it would hurt publishers and small businesses.
    • Other side: ads existed for decades without surveillance; contextual ads and privacy-friendly analytics are viable; tracking-based ads may be overvalued.
  • Some argue cookie laws unintentionally pushed users into large platforms (social networks) that track even more, consolidating power.

Enforcement, dark patterns, and paywalls

  • Many note that current rules already forbid misleading or asymmetric consent flows, but enforcement is weak.
  • Dark patterns include: oversized “Accept” vs. buried “Reject,” repeated prompts when rejecting, or “accept tracking or pay” models.
  • There is debate whether “consent or pay” complies with GDPR; some regulators have criticized it, but practice persists.

Workarounds and technical angles

  • Popular user remedies: uBlock Origin “annoyances” lists, Consent-O-Matic, “I don’t care about cookies,” strict cookie settings, session-only cookies.
  • Some point out that clearing cookies doesn’t prevent server-side tracking or fingerprinting; banners and cookies are only part of the privacy problem.