I think the idea is that after certain tech piece is getting regulated, giants will use this as opportunity to push for some replacement which they will get to influence.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/20/23801435/google-chrome-pr...
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/20/23801435/google-chrome-pr...
I guess rather than regulating cookies, they meant to regulate tracking. Or maybe even regulate targeting, rather than tracking.
The cookie banners are mostly a tragedy, everyone agrees that modal, blocking cookie banners were never the intention. But the giants definitely had something to gain by suggesting they "were forced" to harass visitors.
I hope the EU cracks down on it at some point, the harassment is very much a strategy to manufacture discontent in the public about the regulation, and it works (as you can see in multiple replies anytime this topic shows up in HN), and the strategy is illegal.
When I see statements like this, I wonder: have people ever read anything besides what the industry feeds them? Or the echo chambers of HN and twitter?
Here's GDPR's text: https://gdpr.eu/tag/gdpr/ Please show me where exactly it talks about browsers. Or cookies. You could start with Subject Matter and Objectives: https://gdpr.eu/article-1-subject-matter-and-objectives-over...
> But the giants definitely had something to gain by suggesting they "were forced" to harass visitors.
Indeed. They redirected the ire from themselves to the law and the EU. Spreading FUD works.