Why is this downvoted? This is exactly what happend. Speaking with non tech savvy users here in Germany, they feel safe and secure on Facebook and fear the „world wide west“ that the open Web has become, where you need to click 20 consent messages on every website without knowing what all that stuff means. This is just like EULAs - one more annoying thing they simply accept with a slightly bad gut feeling.
I for one welcome it. If a website has this popup, and it doesn't default to disabled tracking, and there are "legitimate interest" bullshit that cannot be turned off, I close down the website. I even uninstall apps (chess.com, here's looking at you).
Just because website purposefully give a terrible UX in an effort circumvent the law does not mean the law is wrong. It's the implementation.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if you leave the site without doing its maze of opt-outs, then they go "oh great, user didn't opt out!" and you didn't even get to read what you were looking for.
One thing I don’t understand is why in the good lords name do I have to consent to being tracked every day when I have already agreed to the goddamn cookie jar? Often several times per day as well!
> This is just like EULAs - one more annoying thing they simply accept with a slightly bad gut feeling.
The point of GDPR is that they shouldn't have any bad gut feeling about accepting these terms - because anything even slightly shady, in any way beyond the most basic necessities for performing the service, must be opt-in by default, set to "no consent".
Alas, national data protection agencies are way too reluctant to chase the offenders and issue fines, so a big chunk of the sites on the Internet are breaking the law with impunity.
Why is it downvoted? Because it’s implying that selling your information to advertising companies is a good thing, because it increases competition, and regulations making that harder are bad
The problem is that you could frame almost anything like that
Take an extreme example:
Let’s imagine gold traders were allowed to go around taking people’s jewellery at gunpoint. Gold would be cheaper to buy. Traders make more profit. More jobs! Surely this is a win all round?
Of course not, for obvious reasons.
Competition is not a an excuse for damaging your rights
And your example of clicking through 20 scary messages is because the websites, as is pointed out in the article, are not complying with GDPR
Make it so every page that contains a tracking element MUST permanently display a large-ish (say, 1% of the screen for each) seal/label indicating that it is tracking you (like ESRB labels). That way, website will be pushed to remove the tracking elements so that they can remove the offending banners.
In the end this option still hampers genuine users of those websites. That is the point and instead of people taking issue with the website tracking them, they'll complain about the banners instead.
Just look at this entire comment section... No guys, the problem is not that the law is bad, it's that the state of the internet is absolutely fucking terrible. "Why do I have to click so many consent things?" - because everyone is tracking everything about you, this is the point!
They law was aimed at the big guys and they are in my opinion still not compliant, but have not heard of them being fined, some small guys on the other hand...
This law feels more like it was a bribe fishing and checkbox exercise rather than genuine attempt at solving the issue.
Google was fined 50 million euros in 2019 because Android didn't provide enough transparency or informed consent for advertising-related tracking[1].
For a company the size of Google, it's a slap on the wrist (especially when compared to the 5 billion euro fine from 2018 over antitrust violations) but they have been going after the big players. In fact most stories I've heard related to GDPR actions have exclusively been about big players getting fined.
