Comment on Shirley you cant be serious!

• Asifall@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Only if they use cookies which frankly…why the fuck would they need to?

  source

  • imgonnatrythis@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The mnalways dissapointed when a restaurant doesn’t have cookies.

    source
• eendjes@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  They do but lots of places make it a major hassle to set preferences. Like having “accept all” but rejecting has to be done one by one.

  source

  • derfl007@lemmy.wtf ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I’m not a 100% on this, but from what i remember, this is technically also not allowed. According to the regulations, refusing has to be just as easy as accepting. What is unfortunately not regulated (i think) is legitimate interest, so they can give you an option to opt out of cookies but leave all the legitimate interest options on and you have to turn them off one by one

    source

    • Vittelius@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Technically they don’t even have to give you the option to refuse cookies if they have a legitimate interest to collect them. The idea being that if a company’s business model depends on them collecting a certain data point then you shouldn’t be able to get the service for free.

      All of this means, that if a site offers you to refuse cookies they have a legitimate interest on then it’s probably bullshit and they are just using the general confusion to get more data than nessesary.

      source
  • imgonnatrythis@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yeah. That’s standard asshat practice now I feel like. There needs to be a GDRP2 that specifies these settings can only pop up if standardized user defaults saved within the browser settings are not present. It’s gotten way out of control.

    source
  • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Tbh this is the reason I’m just using Firefox focus as default browser. Sure you can install your shit cookies, I’ll wipe them off after I’m done with your site

    source