This again is wrong. The problem originated by publishers who track users and disrespect their privacy for many years.
The regulation that happened after a very long time of people urging governments to do something about that, makes this initial problem better visible.
Still it is important to understand: no cookies are needed at all for publishing content.
Cookie regulation is one of the best examples of how governments meddling into tech has backfired.
It would have been a much better idea to launch a public awareness campaign about cookies and their client-side blocking, or even provide patches to open source browsers to have a better UX for blocking cookies by default. The only regulation that should have been passed (if any), would have been to allow access (to static content) despite blocking of cookies client-side.
Publishers can show a cookie-free site to all visitors and offer a cookie opt-in for some kind of added value, e.g. "more information for membership".
There is no governmental force pushing anybody to produce a website that diplays a "cookie dialog" even before you see what that site is about or if you like it. You are producing a false and absurd story of "governments meddling into tech produces cookie dialogs".
Had the regulation at least forbade this behavior, we most likely wouldn't be in this situation.
However, thinking back, I guess it's fair to say that publishers might have implemented this blocking behavior if the governments would only have done a public awareness campaign. In this case, only a minimum set of regulations (ban force acceptance of cookies for static content) would suffice as well.