Consent is not freely given if it's a requirement for something else.
That is not how consent works.
If I am selling you an apple, but thereby you give me consent to use its genetics for research, and without that we do not do business, then there is nothing optional about it; no opt-in, no opt-out.
Opt-in is when the flag is disabled by default, and you can enable it if you want to, and use the product regardless of your choice.
Opt-out is when the flag is enabled by default, and you can disable it if you want to, and use the product regardless of your choice.
Opt-in is when I buy your apple.
Opt-out is when I don't buy your apple.
That you can decide to not go for the entire package is not what we disagree on (apart from above, I suppose).
What we were discussing is that the consent is optional; it is not in any of these examples. It is part of the package deal; then you don't call it opt-in or opt-out, as that allows you to opt-in or opt-out of something which is otherwise not in your direct advantage, but is in the other party's advantage.
>What we were discussing is that the consent is optional
Yes the consent is optional, in the sense you are allowed to opt-out by not buying the apple or buying it from someone else or produce it yourself.
It is up to us to elect those who represent us in our governments.
For some superficial rule, I may only punish the person who has been found guilty by also punishing the person who has not been found guilty.
Can you explain to me how this is fair?
Here is where you and I differ. You find it OK when a party (e.g. business) uses your private data to sell or otherwise use for their benefit. I believe such personal data is ultimately my say. And I believe only informed opt-in (optional, not part of a package deal ie. how GDPR works) is a fair way to deal with such situation.
Yes, it is. I tell you all the terms of the deal in advance, and you choose to accept it or not. If you don't want my apples, go to the next guy.