That's how the GDPR works - unless the data being collected is required for the operation of the service, you cannot make data collection a requirement of using the service.
Smaller sites don't have the resources to curate their own ads, that's why they use ad networks. If we are strict about this then this rule will eliminate small sites while tightening the grip of the big sites on the net, because they have the resources to adapt.
That's why you ask people. If enough people agree to paying for your content with their data, your site lives on.
If too many opt to not pay for your content with their data, your site dies unless it can find another way of making money, such as subscriptions.
Yes, it absolutely can mean that the giants will expand and lots of small sites that use ad networks will die.
Most people don't care and just choose the default option to get to the site. If opt out is the default and opt in requires a conscious decision then the majority of users won't opt in, because most users don't read the options, only clicks on the default option or the close popup X.
> Yes, it absolutely can mean that the giants will expand and lots of small sites that use ad networks will die.
And we already see the current situation where Facebook is dominant. If more small sites die and the big ones get even stronger then the situation will continue to deteriorate.
Targeted ads pay much more. Eliminating targeted ads can result in a revenue drop of 50% or more, effectively killing small sites which most of the time make not much more money from ads than what is needed for financing themselves.
People won't pay for many small sites separately, so until we have a viable alternative (e.g. automatic micropayments) eliminating targeted ads would effectively eliminate independent journalism as well (regular ads pay much less) and we'll only have sites financed by big corporations pushing their agendas.
I'm not a fan of targeted ads, but I rather have them if they allow independent publishers to operate, than having only new sites financed by big money.
This is just "the ends justify the means", because the consequences fall on the visitors, not the site owners, advertisers, or data brokers. It's a disgusting, predatory rationalization for offloading the damage while reaping the rewards.
Patreon on its own delivers hundreds of millions of dollars of funding a year. Web ads existed long before individualized tracking, and still are that way in pretty much every other medium (print, billboards, broadcast media, product placement, etc). Independent journalism existed in websites, blogs, pre-monetization youtube, etc as well. Heck, SV investment is available and all about spending money without any real revenue plans anyway. :-P Just this one very particular ad model needs to be ended for everybody, big and small, and the advertising market still has everything else covered. The "big money" sites also still need to monetize somehow (and much more voraciously), and wouldn't be allowed tracking ads, either.
If you can't make money without violating your audience, then you don't get to make money at it, and all scales should be held to the same account if it is genuinely considered an issue of rights.
It's not ideal that we need targeted ads for that, but currently there is no viable alternative and untargeted ads don't pay enough.