Well, I’ve got to say: I wasn’t convinced by this argument at all until that diagram appeared. And now, wow, I’m sold. Holy shit. Looks, there’s shapes and everything. Truly, if something is shown in a diagram it MUST be accepted as fact.

Edit: Oh, wow, look, I found another diagram:

“Bully News: Nerd’s Lunch Money Probably Being Spent On Dorky Shit.”

So, yeah, a story from a Russian government mouthpiece quoting a Russian government spokesperson spouting Russian government talking points that - deary me, oh my days, can you believe it, bless my soul, what are the odds, well I’ll be - paints a negative image of the country the Russian government illegally and unjustifiably invaded. Or, maybe the oligarchy are just pissed off that the warlords aren’t buying their weapons from them any more?

Exactly. That’s why it’s so good, and also why the advertisers are trying to confuse people by whining about cookies. This is nothing to do with a specific technology, and entirely about respecting privacy.

As always, it’s not the technology that’s the problem, it’s the grifters running the show. Cookies are great for remembering what’s in a shopping basket, language settings, etc before you sign in and if those were the only kinds of things the sites were using they wouldn’t even need the Cookie banner. Remember the Cookie Banner is nothing to do with Cookies, and everything to do with commercialised mass monitoring.

Okay, so I’m going to copy-paste an answer I got from someone I know who works in a legal department:

Basically, Legitimate Interest lets them track you as if you clicked Accept All, then subsequently they can decide if they think you would benefit from the tracking by their own metrics, which includes things like targeted advertisting which, of course, they do. So “Legitimite Interest” really means “Reject, But Actually Accept”.

Not just “as easy” but “at least as easy”. The assumption should be that the user does not consent. And there have also been a few cases where the courts have - quite rightly - rules that “pay for privacy” offers aren’t good enough.

How is this a problem with the legislation? Do you honestly think your privacy was respected before the law demanded that websites tell you about how they violate your privacy?

Web browsers DO have this as a universal setting, Do Not Track, but websites choose to ignore it beacuse it doesn’t benefit them to respect your right to privacy and treat you with the respect due to a functioning adult.

The legislation was a massive win for everyone except the predatory manipulators.