[rsynnott]

Remember the horse meat scandal, when horse meat showed up unexpectedly in food in Europe? The ceo of one British supermarket chain blamed the Irish food safety authority, who’d detected the contamination due to routine DNA testing (the British FSA had at the time recently ended such testing due to Tories, iirc). His logic was more or less that the FSAI, by detecting the problem, had created the problem; if no-one had known there would be no problem. Pretty much everyone at the time thought this was a bizarre take.

I find it interesting that, in the cookie case, people blame the EU for making the problem visible, rather than blaming the people who created the problem. The cookies are the horseburger, in this instance.

[chankstein38]

It just ended up feeling like a half measure that did nothing but make the internet more tedious for something most people who know anything about the web already knew was a problem. Now it just adds this group of people who have no idea what the popup means who likely just click on the "Accept All" without having any idea what it means.

If they really wanted to do something successful they should've been more strict on the situation. "Accept or Decline front and center" "No tracking cookies without specific UNFORCED opt in" "No annoying popups"

Like I don't know what they added to my experience. I already knew cookies existed and what they were used for. I guess now I can at least opt out in some cases. But who knows what is classified as a "strictly necessary cookie" which is the lowest amount of cookie tracking you can get on most of those sites.

[pseudalopex]

Companies were fined because they had accept all without reject all. Report any violations you see.

Strictly necessary means necessary to provide the service the user requested or comply with other laws. It is stricter than your suggested no tracking standard.