I feel like this is a point the HN crowd likes to ignore when it calls for governments to regulate certain aspects of tech. Do regulations like this really protect consumers, or just make their experience worse?
That point has been beaten to death here in case of GDPR, though. The problem isn't with regulation, but enforcement. The fines aren't applied nowhere near enough, so almost no site cares.
The consumer experience being worse is, in a large way, purposeful UX degradation done by the sites themselves. The typical consent popup tries to simultaneously walk the line between "illegal under GDPR" and "just scummy" (often crossing to the illegal side; see the problem of low enforcement), and shift the blame for bad UX on those pesky, no good regulators.
Did I have to deal with these popups before GDPR? No.
Was I blocked from accessing many US sites before GDPR? No.
If EU cancels GDPR would everything go back to normal? Probably.
As an unhappy consumer, that's all I need to know. The cause and effect is pretty obvious here.
Sure, some people may be happy (I hope?!) with whatever privacy benefits GDPR is supposed to bring about.
But blaming websites for responding to EU regulation one way or another, doesn't make me, who doesn't care about these supposed benefits, feel any better. If GDPR people feel like this is a cost worth paying then so be it. I certainly don't believe more enforcement will somehow make companies come up with fewer legal derisking strategies.
That's a bit like complaining about street lights, because thieves now have to accost you, where previously they'd just punch you in the dark and steal your money without you knowing what happened, or who did it.
GDPR forced bad actors on the Internet to document their bad behavior openly. If this made your overall Internet experience worse, it should reveal to you the magnitude of the problem of surveillance capitalism.
