> Half of the GDPR advocates here seem to think tracking is inherently bad and should be banned.
There is noting wrong with tracking (indeed, it is essential for some services), provided it is done fairly with a clear opt-in.
> but the current cost is too high.
If you think the cost of providing informed consent (!) is "too high", them I'm afraid we live on different planets.
If you don't like being constantly nagged to provide informed consent, then direct your ire to the scummy add-tech industry who are parasites on the web. One can serve up advertising without needing to invade a users privacy.
Yeah, you're exactly one of those GDPR advocates I was describing. You say this:
> There is noting wrong with tracking
But then you turn around and describe tracking as "scummy," "parasites," and "invading privacy."
Again, I would find it less objectionable to just make tracking illegal than this "informed consent" bullshit (which is mostly not actually informed consent because no one wants to spend the time to be informed about every fricking decision here, it's just a website).
There is noting wrong with tracking (indeed, it is essential for some services), provided it is done fairly with a clear opt-in.
> but the current cost is too high.
If you think the cost of providing informed consent (!) is "too high", them I'm afraid we live on different planets.
If you don't like being constantly nagged to provide informed consent, then direct your ire to the scummy add-tech industry who are parasites on the web. One can serve up advertising without needing to invade a users privacy.