But, I feel that assuming a pseudo-contractual relationship between websites and users is euphemism. I feel the same way about user agreements. The south park parody of apple's sums it up, for me.
Not even judges read it. It can't form the basis of a consent model. I think bans on certain types of tracking would be preferable to "consent."
If we are determined to have explicit contracts, we need to be realistic and take incentives into account. If the website controls the UI of the "opt in," language of the contract and such... they have a high level of control over outcomes... and these are highly manipulated to secure convenient outcomes. UI plays a far bigger role in determining the "consent" outcomes than user preferences.
So, if we are determined to go down this route, "consent management" needs to be "open" to 3rd parties chosen by users and allow central management, user selected defaults and 3rd party recommendations/defaults.
If user consent actually reflected informed user preferences, FB's tracking pixel would be disabled for >90% of users. What possible benefit is this to users?
The overlap between people who are paranoid that FB is listening to their conversations via the phone mic and users who have "consented" to advertiser cookies on a bunch of sites tells me that this model for consent is fundamentally broken.
On the flip side if you (or someone) doesn't mind....
I can tell from the downvotes (also on similar comments) that this is an unpopular opinion. Anyone care to defend gdpr "consent" as it exists currently. I don't mean the aspirational language of the law, I mean consent in the wild under gdpr today.
