Feel free to link to a plugin you trust...
If you don't like cookie banners, which are indeed really annoying, you should be turning your ire to the companies that wish to track you. They are fully-functional solutions that allow anonymous tracking without installing cookies on your computer - no banner needed then.
Good for you. Most people are not technical and can't, so why do they also not deserve to not get tracked too?
Are you sure? It starts from simple supercookie-like stuff and ends at TrustPID where the network provider aids in tracking.
Essentially, now we're at a state where consent banners exist, slowing down all sites, and there are like four states: a) they look compliant, but are ignored by the website provider (the EU itself takes this approach), b) they are flat out ignored (a lot of companies still take this approach) c) they aren't compliant (tiny "no" link, huge "yes, take my firstborn" link) d) they're compliant and are paywalls (buy subscription or accept everything under the sun).
d) is what we're probably going to end up with, so you either pay or you accept tracking. More and more solutions offer that as an option so adoption will grow. Most people accept tracking (stats that I've seen say that those paying are like 1/10,000th), so what have we won exactly by doing this dance?
That would require more regulation, by regulating both browsers and websites, and their technical protocol. Instead the EU tried to minimize regulation by not prescribing the exact technical means by which websites would need to obtain consent for tracking from users.
Browsers could already do most of it, and there are far fewer browser manufacturers than website owners, and they have far more resources than the average website owner, and, at least for some of them (all of them except Chrome), the incentives would be aligned. Right now it's "protect the user (and earn less money)", and the results are unsurprising.
Lastly, cookies aren’t the only way of tracking. Websites can also use local storage, or fingerprinting, and so on, each of which can equally require consent. If the browser consent mechanism is restricted to cookies, websites would have to be mandated to always use a cookie to ask for consent, even when they actually use other means for tracking, and websites would have to explicitly check whether the cookie is stored or not in order to control any other tracking.
Easy. Clear your cookies. Use a proxy. Use a fingerprint resistant browser. Will protect against >99% of website operators.
Ideally browser should just send "do not track" and site should fuck off with tracking, no questions asked.
However, choosing to respect the users' wishes isn't very profitable. You need to make your ads relevant to the content somehow andtthat requires effort and skills. It's much more profitable to trick people into consenting with tracking so you can sell their information, so the more annoying your cookie popup becomes, the more money you can make. IAB has already been fined for such a popup mechanism.
"Do not track" is not enough to comply with GDPR because you must also be able to request a copy or corrections of your personal information once you have given consent. Then there's the option to allow some companies to track you (say, analytics companies) but not others (say, Google) that needs to be taken into account.
Back in the day, Microsoft's P3P protocol was trying to fix this problem, but nobody used it. DNT headers also aren't really configurable in the browser itself, you can only pick on or off.
A protocol is being developed that may solve this (https://www.dataprotectioncontrol.org/) but I'm sure it won't work until the EU forces company to take such protocols into account. After all, ignoring people's wishes is literally how these ad empires are making money now.