What I wrote is just a guess and partly a joke: Cookies and requests to permit them are now so pervasive on the Internet that NOT making such a request might cause some people to assume the site WAS using cookies WITHOUT permission and make a "stink". I still suspect that there might be some such "stink".
For the EU, I was poking fun at what appears to be some heavy bureaucracy in the EU. Also I was referring to the EU as a geographic region and not necessarily a government. I was guessing a "stink" might come from some person, maybe in the media or some small organization;
I didn't say or believe that my site would actually be violating some EU law.
No request to permit cookies is one more way to save the users from botheration and more quickly get to the purpose of the Web site.
> your site does not exist
The code runs as intended, and site exists and is on the way to being available to the public.
The site seems to be by a wide margin the best solution for a problem.
The problem the site solves is one part of a quite general problem. There should be opportunities for more startups to solve other parts of the general problem. The general problem should be good for 2 billion users, but the part being solved by my startup might be 1% to 5% of that, that is, 20 million to 100 million. That is the site has a focused audience. The focus stands to make the audience smaller but easier to please.