The more tricky and clicky it is, the more shitty the people behind are. This is the lamest way (to try) to bypass rules and therefore pretty insulting to their audience. First contender: Arstechnica.com from Condé Nasty cult.
“Oh, the regulation say we must tell the users why we need cookies and provide how to opt out… mmh but we need those shit, let’s find a way to stay compliant but discourage the opt-out in the most sonOfremovedWay.”
Even, TheVerge and other from Vox Media sphere, which I thought were the nastiest, have changed it back to a simple consent or do not consent button.
ASstechnica likes to play the SJW, rights defensers, criticizes celebrieties or shitty on twitter but with their cookie maze consent shit containing a 100ish of advertisers (that you have to disable one bye one), they are litterally the worse BSiter ever.
So of course, I pass on but not without telling the fediverse how hypocrite this site/company is.
hero point +1 :P
Please don’t hang me up on this, but I’m pretty sure that “I don’t care about cookies” defaults to accepting some/all cookies, while ublock blocks them.
Both get rid of the banners, but if you also want to get rid of the cookies themselves, then ublock might be better.
Edit: Or rather ublock blocks the banner, which means that the site can’t legally put a cookie on your PC.
That’s correct, it basically is a convenience to get to the site and does nothing for privacy. Also the developer sold out to Avast.
If you want something like this, what you want is https://github.com/OhMyGuus/I-Still-Dont-Care-About-Cookies which is a fork without the Avast bs
Well, TIL.
I thought it just hid all of them without accepting. Should’ve read thoroughly.