Note, I’m not in any way an expert on the legality of it, but this seems like a silly argument to make. If anything, being more up-front with the model may open alternative methods of monetization (subscription-based, etc).
And this is why I have such a problem with the rule. Without some dramatic changes, any video streaming site almost surely wouldn't be able to handle the substantially lower ad revenue and still make a profit if everyone actually opted out. Sites like Facebook would probably turn a profit, but there's a large portion of the internet that would not survive when faced with 90% less revenue (untargeted ads payout drastically less).
>“Freely given” consent essentially means you have not cornered the data subject into agreeing to you using their data. For one thing, that means you cannot require consent to data processing as a condition of using the service. They need to be able to say no. According to Recital 42, “Consent should not be regarded as freely given if the data subject has no genuine or free choice or is unable to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment.” [1]
[1] https://gdpr.eu/gdpr-consent-requirements/
EDIT: Come on can we not down vote just because you disagree here? It's just going to be come a circle jerk like most of Reddit if you guys keep this up... I linked a source even proving this OP wrong... from the official GDPR resource...
And you are clearly tracked across Google services at least, as anyone who has ever google something shopping related, then viewed a youtube video can tell you.
>The obvious answer is that monetized videos generally have a subject, and advertisements can be tied to that subject.
The obvious answer to me is that not everyone opted out. Businesses generally want to make money, collecting data clearly made them more money, or they wouldn't have done it. Now they make less on those who opted out.