But I agree with you that the placement and the fact that the banner blocks the whole website is unconvenient.
The second notification tells you to turn your ad-blocker of or to watch a video instead.
No, it is not mandatory by European law. The myth persists.
The site can use essential cookies or no cookies just fine, with no banner required at all. Nothing.
If they decide to use non-essential cookies, for example privacy-intrusion tracking cookies to follow your activity around the web for advertising, then they need to notify you of this tracking and obtain consent. You have a right to know, after all, and you might prefer to exercise your rights by declining consent. But nothing requires it to be a large banner, and nothing requires the "reject all" button to be difficult to find.
As I wrote, I find the blocking of the website and the placement of the banner unconvinient. I am also convinced that it should be mandatory to have a "essential cookies only" button.
I just wanted to explain what the banner is for, as the parent comment did not understand the german text.
I can’t get worked up against them for wanting to get paid, even though I regard adverts as parasites of time, energy, and bandwidth and won’t disable my ad blocker for them — I don’t have solutions, just the aphorism about two wrongs.
I didn't tolerate it either — I can often figure out which button is "Necessary cookies only", but not in this case.
However, Firefox's reader mode retains the main image: https://www.mopo.de/image/32016852/2x1/940/470/afcc092634a9d...
