[zelphirkalt]

EU law is not at fault here. At fault are the websites that feel the need to be so obnoxious in their behavior, that they are told to have those consent prompts for all the obnoxious shit they engage in. Basically, the EU is doing the Lord's work here, making these sites annoying, so that people might be persuaded to leave those websites. Unfortunately, the EU does not persecute harshly enough, so that all kinds of grifters do not follow the law and get away with it.

[PaulHoule]

I am tired of people making excuses for the EU. The EU has had almost a decade to respond to the numerous complaints about those cookie banners and their answer has been "talk to the hand" -- and they wonder why they are being overrun by right wing populists.

It is the worst of German "incumbents über alles" and American legalism. "Respect DNT or go to jail" would have been fair and easier to administer but Big Tech lobbyists helped design the GDPR to stifle smaller competitors who couldn't laugh at the occasional fine for malicious compliance.

[zelphirkalt]

Can you refer to some examples or procedures, that you think fit the "talk to the hand" description? I would think that upholding the law is a matter of countries and only in big cases with EU-spanning big tech being the task of EU courts. Countries however, have failed to persecute tons of websites that don't adhere to the law. But that doesn't translate to "talk to the hand". It translates to tolerating crimes and not protecting citizen rights. Which actions or inaction specifically are what you are referring to?

[array_key_first]

Because they literally can't do anything. They can't make shitheads not shitheads because there's nothing illegal about being a shithead.

It's trivial, truly trivial, to not need a cookie popup. I never put them on my website. We must then conclude that people are putting them on their website because they want to annoy users.

[troupo]

> Big Tech lobbyists helped design the GDPR to stifle smaller competitors who couldn't laugh at the occasional fine for malicious compliance

It is actually trivial to comply with GDPR for smaller companies than for incumbents simply because smaller companies don't collect and sell copious amounts of user data.

What people are tired about is "technologists" completely absolving the tech (that they are a part of) of any wrongoping in this. "Oh, the EU made these mandatory" they cry and happily impöement dark patterns to collect and indefinitely store all your data.

The only blame you can lay on EU is not enough enforcement.

[orangecat]

The only blame you can lay on EU is not enough enforcement.

That's a very big "only". Malicious compliance (and non-compliance) was an easily predictable consequence of the law, they've completely failed at responding to it, and the web is now worse as a result.

[troupo]

"The blame lies not with the companies blatantly flaunting the law and engaging in complicious compliance. The blame is on the law enforcement".

Note how you, too, absolve the companies of any responsibility because it was apparently "an obvious and expected response" to a law which only asks to not track without consent.