| This position is a somewhat naive because it does not following through with the consequences of the actions: you missed the part where there is no National Geographic - and you don't get any content - in the most ideal scenarios from the user's perspective. The business model of the internet is advertising, as of today, that requires cookies, which by the way, don't represent material harm. Also - you're specific view is in no way representative of the population at large. 'Most people' would rather remain completely private at the same time, they would forgo at least some degree of privacy for the option. Given the choice of a: a) No content
b) Constant popups
c) The previous imperfect norm but where people can get their content without hassle ... They would chose option 'c' - hands down. The effect of legislation is to create popup hassles for individuals that they never read - and to provide no real material improvement for people. What they could have don instead. i) Orchestrated cookie-free advertising exchanges and solutions ii) Created privacy 'categories' and relevant rules and symbols, like movie ratings - and a symbol could be placed o prominently on the site so consumers have a quick and easy mechanism to know where they stand. iii) worked with other nations and groups to arrive at consistent standards. With Canada, Australia, Japan on board, it might be very well possible to convince a Biden-lend USA to buy into some kind of standard. What we have now is not pragmatic and it's ill conceived. This would all go away if users were will to fork over 5 cents to read an article. |