Regulation "failures" are mostly about the wording, the how; less about what and why.
I guess rather than regulating cookies, they meant to regulate tracking. Or maybe even regulate targeting, rather than tracking.
The cookie banners are mostly a tragedy, everyone agrees that modal, blocking cookie banners were never the intention. But the giants definitely had something to gain by suggesting they "were forced" to harass visitors.
And the forced harassment is very likely illegal, the law is pretty clear that refusing/removing consent should be as easy as giving consent. Very few sites have both "refuse all" and "accept all" on the same pop-up, even worse are the "legitimate interest" ones which hide a second layer of refusal under that tab.
I hope the EU cracks down on it at some point, the harassment is very much a strategy to manufacture discontent in the public about the regulation, and it works (as you can see in multiple replies anytime this topic shows up in HN), and the strategy is illegal.
> I guess rather than regulating cookies, they meant to regulate tracking. Or maybe even regulate targeting, rather than tracking.
When I see statements like this, I wonder: have people ever read anything besides what the industry feeds them? Or the echo chambers of HN and twitter?
I guess rather than regulating cookies, they meant to regulate tracking. Or maybe even regulate targeting, rather than tracking.
The cookie banners are mostly a tragedy, everyone agrees that modal, blocking cookie banners were never the intention. But the giants definitely had something to gain by suggesting they "were forced" to harass visitors.