If you want to track unique users, well, you're not supposed to unless the users opt in (not avoid opting out!), and you have to accept that at least a part won't - the society and law has decided such desires are not legitimate unless the data subjects themselves want that.

Those are legitimate cookies for which you don’t need to ask an authorization.

> How are you supposed to count unique users that visit your site?

https://plausible.io/blog/google-analytics-cookies#how-can-p...

> These are legitimate questions a publisher may want to know to improve their site, but are not allowed under GDPR without a specific notice and opt-out.

Why would the publisher’s questions be legitimate and the user’s right not to be tracked no? You can still answer those questions but you need to ask for permission. A physical store owner has also a lot of questions but they’re not allowed to follow you everywhere in the store and in the street.

> Heck, when GDPR was first proposed most publishers assumed advertising would be allowed under "essential" business uses since they can't provide content if they don't get paid.

That’s a really weird reasoning. Should drug dealers be exempted from police controls because their activity is essential for their income and so for their life? Earning money is necessary, but there are multiple ways to do so.

You're not supposed to A/B test at all. Users are not test subjects.

> How are you supposed to count unique users that visit your site? How are you supposed to figure out why most users bounce?

You're not supposed to. You simply aren't entitled to any of that information.

> These are legitimate questions a publisher may want to know to improve their site

It doesn't matter how "legitimate" it is or how much money it costs publishers. The attempt to learn these facts requires collecting identifying information and that is harmful to us.

The least you can do is ask permission.

> There are many cases where what publications consider "essential" for their business do not match what the EU has decided is "essential".

That's by design. Nobody really cares what an industry that's being regulated thinks. Obviously adtech considers it "essential" to collect as much personal data as humanly possible.

What matters is what society thinks and we think sites work just fine with all the tracking disabled.

> publishers assumed advertising would be allowed under "essential" business uses

Advertising is allowed. It's just the abusive adtech model of targeted advertising that requires consent. Nothing stops people from signing a deal with some brand and serving static images or something. As long as it's not surveillance capitalism it's fine.