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
Kinda faulty logic. The majority of those cookie prompts literally do nothing. You can check which actually work if you decline them.
The shitty companies make it ridiculously easy to interface with because they actually don’t even want to use them. Hence why most don’t do squat. They want your data.
You’re thinking of it in a legal sense, to make too many hoops to jump thru, which is pointless given users can’t really verify if it does anything.
so why doing this in first place ?! it should be an opt-in not an opt-out.
At the very least, paywall are more honest.
so I maintain: SHITTY COMPANY