> users could choose to have their browsers just block cookies if they cared
1. That would also block functional cookies.
2. That requires users to know that it's a thing they should care about. It's not cool to spy on people just because they haven't realized what you're doing and taken countermeasures.
Agreed. But I don't think this situation is better—users now know about it but are exhausted by it. Having educated them doesn't help if you've also pounded them into submission.
> Having educated them doesn't help if you've also pounded them into submission.
Pounding them into submission also makes their consent legally invalid in many cases, at least by the standard which the GDPR requires. Example GDPR complaint about this problem: https://noyb.eu/en/bereal-app-wont-take-no-answer
This aspect of the law is more an enforcement issue (including national Data Protection Authorities which have effectively been captured by the companies they are supposed to regulate) than a legislation issue.
I'm glad that noyb recently got approved to file something broadly similar to what in the US would be called a class action lawsuit, so that they can do some of the enforcement that the governments won't.
Consider donating to them if you want to see proper compliance. They're doing most of the useful enforcement these days. I have no affiliation myself besides also considering making my own donation.
> Pounding them into submission also makes their consent legally invalid in many cases
Showing a cookie banner on each site is pounding us all into submission. It's not that any single website's banner is too much; it's that we are all clicking them all day long.
Honestly, it would be awesome if there was an effective way to geofence these banners to the EU. However, IIRC the EU law asserts control over websites in other countries, on the off chance that an EU national might access the website.
> Showing a cookie banner on each site is pounding us all into submission. It's not that any single website's banner is too much; it's that we are all clicking them all day long.
Disagree. I have a browser extension installed that makes the repetition across sites irrelevantly easy, at least on my laptop Chrome browser. I don't usually click on them at all except for sites which try to interfere with the browser extension or which try to block access unless I pay them or agree.
Also, for people without such an extension, seeing the banners could be a reason from complaint to the website itself. No law requires them to do the kind of tracking which requires them to gather consent, nor to gather the consent in such an obtrusive way as they often choose when they do want to gather consent. The most effective way to get websites to stop being obnoxious to their users would be if they had to deal with user complaints about it, not anything legislators can do.
> Honestly, it would be awesome if there was an effective way to geofence these banners to the EU. However, IIRC the EU law asserts control over websites in other countries, on the off chance that an EU national might access the website.
I've already explained to you in other comments how that summary of GDPR jurisdiction is wrong. But hey, when I'm in the US and a website lets me deny consent, I'm happy for the extra protection from tracking. Conversely, when I see the difference in banners when I go to the US - yes, most sites do geofence their own banners to EU-based visitors - I am horrified at the tracking people aren't being told about outside the EU.
1. That would also block functional cookies.
2. That requires users to know that it's a thing they should care about. It's not cool to spy on people just because they haven't realized what you're doing and taken countermeasures.