• dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      They could be telling the truth… It’s possible that OP is in Europe and the ad blocker is blocking a GDPR cookie consent notice.

      The message explicitly mentions EasyList Cookie, which is described like this on https://easylist.to/:

      EasyList Cookie List blocks cookies banners, GDPR overlay windows and other privacy-related notices.

      Edit: I’m not agreeing with what they’re doing. I’m just saying that the message may be accurate. Having said that, maybe blocking a cookie banner should count as an opt-out, so they shouldn’t show this notice and instead just automatically reject the cookies. I’m not sure if the law is clear around this, though.

      If you want to opt-out of tracking cookies, consent-o-matic will likely work better. It automatically clicks the right buttons in the consent notice for you.

      Edit 2: The law seems unclear about what to do if the consent notice is blocked by the viewer’s browser (and thus they can neither accept nor reject cookies), so maybe blocking access to the site is likely the safest approach for them to take.

      • BigDiction@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        Imagining a returning user who previously consented. If non essential cookies changed since their last visit, that user needs to consent again. But in scenario, just auto opt them out? I’m weirdly on the fence between this might be a reasonable block or a violation of GDPR for denying access to users who do not provide consent.

        • dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m weirdly on the fence

          Yeah I’m not quite sure either. I don’t think the people that wrote the cookie consent laws considered the fact that users may block or otherwise break the mechanism that sites use to show the consent prompt…

      • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’ve had it happen to me for a week or two now. US based. I always just figure if a site doesn’t work with my blockers, then I really don’t need to see it.

      • tslnox@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        The law is done dumb. They should update it to say “the banner must always have a “reject all” button which rejects everything (including the legitimate interest) on it and it must not be hidden inside any further clicks”

        I’m sick of having to search for that button under two sub menus or having to uncheck 20 check boxes. And what the hell is even “legitimate interest”? There’s nothing legitimate about any tracking at all. This phrase really offends me every time I read it.