The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
"That could take some time"... exactly. But if they both want me to visit their site, and to comply with GDPR and other privacy laws, that's the cost of doing business.
The point of my original post was that far too often companies are being damn lazy and just splattering a "we're gonna load up your machine with our cookies, if you don't like it, tough you don't even get to see our home page" sign (or words to that effect). GDPR meant to make cookies optional, but companies are so lazy they take the easy approach.
Of course the cookie-dependent code should be conditional - as developers we should all know not to make assumptions about the presence of things we can't directly control (like cookies) so even without an opt-out option, the site shouldn't fall over in their absence.
The issue is just the tip of an iceberg that could sink society - the laziness, sloppiness and self-centredness of most of today's business. (In fact it's not just businesses, either - increasingly it's on charity, "public service" information, government sites etc too).
Plus, I was wondering if other people do what I do - just delete the offending HTML elements so I can see what I want to on the page (and without navigating further on the site).
The industry and consumers need to figure-out a new way to work together.
Simply having less cookies is still have cookies. Like when food says 10% less saturated fat. It's a workaround to makeing minimal change to the product, but actually does not long term help the consumer.
You disliked being stabbed.
We have a new product. Stabbing 2.0 - 90% less stabby.
What's irritating as hell is having to respond to the same cookie message each time you go to the same web site, even if you already accepted the cookie usage. Someone is not coding their websites properly, or just does not give a %$#@!
More interesting - I have firefox set up to accept only first-person cookies and then only until the browser's close (or, more often, I cull the herd).
So - how will the blocked third-party cookies help my experience?
Although not quite equivalent, when I want to remember you on a website I build I use $_SESSION variables - They have, at least in terms of privacy, only one reader - which is the site, itself. No third-party session variables. And gone when the browser closes.
That being said, for public facing websites I don't even do that - only in-house sites to keep track of who's logged in where (encrypted values).
Flip=phone just makes are receives phone calls - no cookie pleas (so far). Mobile users may want to emulate this plan (and save a lot of money on their phone, too).
In firefox, there is a little rectangular text icon at the right side of the url bar called "toggle reader view". I find that almost all the time, the site is readable in reader view, which ignores the cookie message because it isn't perceived as the main text of the window. I hate to give away my secret, because someone will program around it, but there it is.