[kalaksi]

Tracking, tracking cookies, banners etc. are a choice done by the website. There are browser addons for making it simpler, though.

The transparency requirements and consent for collecting all kinds of PII (this is the regulation) actually is a great innovation.

[docmars]

I think I'd rather see cookie notices handled by a browser API with a common UI, where the default is always "No." Provide that common UI in a popover accessed in the address bar, or a side pane in the browser itself.

If a user logs in or does something requiring cookies that would otherwise prevent normal functionality, prompt them with a Permissions box if they haven't already accepted it in the usual (optional) UI.

[kalaksi]

Cookies for normal functionality don't require consent anyway.

But yes, I think just about everybody would like the UX you described. But the entities that track you don't want to make it that easy. You probably know of the do-not-track header too.

[YetAnotherNick]

There isn't any way EU didn't knew this was possible and is a better choice. There already was DNT header that they can regulate. It also knew the harm to ad industry.

[Fraaaank]

There isn't any rule that requires websites to use a cookie banner. Your required to obtain explicit consent before reading/setting any cookies that aren't strictly necessary. The web came up with the cookie banner.

Google could've implemented a consent API in Chrome, but they didn't. Guess why.