https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/consent-o-matic/
Also available for other browsers.
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
915 points (98.6% liked)
memes
18061 readers
2727 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Wow, thank you!
Block. According to the GDPR consent has to be explicit, so never pressing "Accept" is surprisingly a valid tactic.
Enforcement, however, is a different story.
"Save preferences"? Save them where exactly?
In the strictly necessary cookies that you can't turn off you silly billy
This is where they get you.
We can have a necessary cookie, as a treat.
~~Accept all~~ Block all
And then the companies get all uwu but adblocking is stealing and damages our revenue! 😭
The part that annoys me is that I have Do Not Track enabled in my browser and there's one (1) website I use that respects this choice, as intended by GDPR. (geizhals.de)
All others choose to bother me about their stupid ad tracking.
The Do Not Track header has been discontinued by most browsers. It's the sad state of affairs.
In an ideal world, all websites shouldn't even show a cookie alert if you have that header on.
Many sites have a one click "reject all" now, and it's getting more common over time.
That's because they have to. If I remember correctly it is supposed to be as easy to reject as to accept, but until it has been judged in a court it is "unknown" what the sites can or should do.
Which doesn't reject all.
They need a cookie to remember your choice otherwise it has to ask you every single time. It’s the paradox of cookies!
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ublock origin is always the solution
That doesn't remove cookie prompts
It totally can of you enable that block list in the preferences/settings.
Install "I still don't care about cookies" on Firefox based browsers.
Cookies are declined immediately and the banners closed. Works most of the time unless it's a custom non-standard cookie prompt implementation.
You're welcome.
It dosn't delete cookies. I use 'Cookie Autodelete' for that togehter with 'I still don't care about cookies', which is the community version of 'I don't care about cookies'. It is much better at removing the Popups.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
i just disabled cookie persistence in my browsers.
now it doesn't matter if i click accept all or not
It does, the GDPR does not talk about cookies but tracking consent. Cookies are one of the tools for tracking.
Also disabling cookie persistence does nothing against in session tracking.
Maybe I'm getting things backwards here, but wouldn't disabling cookie persistence actually stop some of the more malicious forms of tracking, where different websites track your activity across websites? I'm not an expert on this specific matter but my understanding was that website A saves a cookie in your browser, which website B then uses to identify you (maybe with some extra steps of shipping that data off to some data broker or w/e but you get the picture). I thought that disabling persistence would stop that from occurring in the sense that once your restart your browser and go to website B, there is nothing from A for them to look at.
It will stop tracking between session (after a restart), but not during a session (or "in session"). There is plenty to be collected during a session and you might even actually use some of that data to correlate a user between sessions.
It's more important to keep cookies separate per sites, like Firefox's Total Cookie Protection does.
They aren't asking me for permission to track me, they're asking permission to save cookies to that end.
I refuse them the permission they are legally required to acquire from me
Out of principle I always reject all, even though they are blocked by pf blocker anyway.
Consent-o-matic is your friend 🌞
Been using it for a long time. In my experience it covers maybe 30 or 40% of sites only.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Today i had a new one:
[ Accept ]
Or
[ Pay to Reject ]
That's when you choose option 3:
[Close tab]
load more comments
(12 replies)
I need to verify this, but I vaguely remembered you’re supposed to be able to exit these safely in two clicks maximum, though they sometimes obscure it.
Usually, it’s something like “Customize” then “Save” without checking anything, or just “Reject All”.
it's even more straight forward than that; accepting and rejecting has to be the same number of steps.
So basically 90% of sites aren’t GDPR compliant.
correct!
Correct. But companies seem to not give two fricks about it. There should be harsher punishments in place.
load more comments
(2 replies)
ublock has filter lists for these things. Doesn't always work but helps a lot.
the nice part is that if you don't ever respond to the popup, they are not allowed to presume you accepted
I don't understand why US sites display this when their audience is US only.
California also requires this, as well as Canada
Which US sites have US visitors only? Apart from government.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think people really misunderstand cookies and have been lead to get angry at exactly the wrong things which actually give the biggest companies huge advantages so they're fine with all of this mumbojumbo.
When you cant have local cookies, or there are hoops, companies that need not bother with this because they own your browser (Google) or companies that own major search engines (Google) or companies that most other companies rely on for ads or social media integration etc (Google) are tremendously advantaged.
Now, basically only Google can collect a wholistic profile of a user, while regular websites must now waste extra man power implementing completely useless cookie preferences when in reality this should have been simplified, at worst, to 3 buttons.
All, No Marketting, No Telemetry.
Anything else is just the user wasting their time or destroying the functionality of a website for no reason/requiring busy body work to comply with ill conceived regulations.
With the downfall of third party cookies in most browsers, cookies literally just serve as some temporary storage for websites on your local machine. Cookies existing or not existing arent what control whether you are tracked, especially given all the fancy fingerprinting that goes on nowadays.
Why oh why didn't the lawmakers add an obligation to use a standardized cookies selection popup.
I remember day one of it coming into effect and it was already obvious this was a necessity.
Lobbying. One of those laws pretending to do the right thing but sabotaged.
Or maybe its even worse than that.
Before you could just have the cookies deleted. But if you do that now you get the awful popup every time, so you just accept them in the end.
I know I do.
This law has made me accept cookies spying.
That's already part of the GDPR, companies just aren't complying with it.
From the official GDPR site:
To comply with the regulations governing cookies under the GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive you must:
- Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies.
- Provide accurate and specific information about the data each cookie tracks and its purpose in plain language before consent is received.
- Document and store consent received from users.
- Allow users to access your service even if they refuse to allow the use of certain cookies
- Make it as easy for users to withdraw their consent as it was for them to give their consent in the first place.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Because those laws were made with good intentions in mind.
But businesses never have good intentions, especially if it eats into their revenue. So they use malicious compliance to make it seem like it is the law that is bad.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›