Why Should I Accept All Cookies?

Posted2 months agoActive2 months ago

jnord

7 points

3 comments

idiallo.comTechstory

calmnegative

Debate

20/100

CookiesPrivacyWeb Development

Key topics

Privacy

Web Development

The article discusses the implications of accepting all cookies on websites, and the HN discussion revolves around the trade-offs between convenience and privacy.

Snapshot generated from the HN discussion

Discussion Activity

Light discussion

First comment

21m

Peak period

0-1h

Avg / period

Key moments

01Story posted
Nov 1, 2025 at 7:56 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01
02First comment
Nov 1, 2025 at 8:17 PM EDT
21m after posting
Step 02
03Peak activity
3 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03
04Latest activity
Nov 1, 2025 at 8:32 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 04

Generating AI Summary...

Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns

Discussion (3 comments)

Showing 3 comments

zahlman

2 months ago

1 reply

> But when that option is hidden, I've resorted to opening my browser's developer tools and deleting the banner element from the page altogether. It’s a desperate workaround for a system that refuses to offer a legitimate "no."

... Okay, but then does the site actually drop cookies?

Telaneo

2 months ago

It shouldn't, as it shouldn't save your preferences without you actually having pressed the button to save it, but I wouldn't put it past some web-dev to save that cookie as a default 'everything enabled' on first load, and only edit it to actually reflect the user's preferences once they've gone through the motions.

Doing anything other than not dumping those cookies is a dick move in this sort of case, since the user hasn't provided clear and obvious consent.

Telaneo

2 months ago

As the article says, it's a dark pattern, and there's no actual reason for any random visitor to press 'Accept all' other than the fact that it's simpler.

I'm still waiting for the EU or whatever other court to put the hammer down on that fact and start handing out fines to people who follow this dark pattern, or just straight up ban the data collection that's the whole reason people want you to press 'Accept all' in the first place. Some courts have already ruled that you need a 'Reject all' button,[1] precisely because not giving consent needs to be just as easy as giving it. It's obvious to anyone that having 'Customise' be the alternative to 'Accept all' is naught more than an attempt to comply with the letter of the law while wholly rejecting its spirit.

Now, maybe we can expand the rejection of that dark pattern to other software. The article has some good examples like 'Get started' versus 'Remind me later', but I'd love it extended to software updates, so you can accept security updates (somewhat analogous to required cookies), and reject "feature" updates (often analogous to tracking/marketing/screw you cookies), but I doubt there's an easy way to regulate that. Even free software (both as in beer and as in speech) have done the same kinds of crimes, if only because they're following the UX language of the times, or because someone is really excited about their new feature and just really thinks you should try it.

[1] https://www.techspot.com/news/108043-german-court-takes-stan...

View full discussion on Hacker News

ID: 45786634Type: storyLast synced: 11/17/2025, 7:48:38 AM

Want the full context?

Jump to the original sources

Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.

Open link View on HN