I find it hilarious that the entire internet tracking and surveylance industry simply thinks it is entitled to this level of information now.
This is really an idiotic law in that it punishes the symptom (a third-party web request), but ignores the underlying problem (data strip mining by Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.). Punishing the data strip mining, but leave the third-party web requests (which is an intrinsic feature of the web) would at least make some logical sense.
Regarding the instrinic part of the internet argument, that's just an appeal to nature. Naturally the internet is such and such, and therefore it's good (and also currently widespread). That's not a reason why that should be. We forbid plenty of such intrinsicly human things by law, because that's how ~the ruling class can stay in power~ lots of people can live together in relative safety. For example hurting someone else is perfectly natural, I think. I think it happened lots of times before it became a sort of law to not do that. And of course it happens now in many direct and indirect ways, because people want to express, for example, just how angry they are at another. Yet I don't see how we shouldn't restrict this very intrinsic thing.
Also, but this is just conjecture, I think this application of GDPR would allow third party requests IF they are not logged for example. Because then the data collection doesn't happen. In TFA, the third party is Google, and that might be the thing that makes the difference.