> It’s an inconvenience to people who care about privacy and use browser configurations that don’t store state between visits.
>
> So now in an attempt to protect regular users, the law ended up hurting users that already cared.
Fair point about the banners mostly "hurting" users who care about privacy (but, really though- how much does it really "hurt" you? I'm "hurt" more by the fact that I have to fold laundry several days a week).
But, I take major issue with you saying that the LAW ended up hurting users. Companies are under no legal obligation to make those banners as obnoxious as they are or with so many dark patterns (I sometimes don't know if I'm even enabling or disabling tracking with the way they word it). That's squarely on the web site owners pulling that nonsense.
> Additionally, the shadiest and incompetent sites still just track people with no cookie banner. So the law doesn’t really provide protection against uncooperative parties, whereas privacy technology does.
I agree that the only/best way to protect yourself is via technology and not by relying on people obeying the law.
However, if this is also an argument against having the law, it's an incredibly weak one. You can apply that logic to argue that NO laws are effective. People still murder even though it's illegal- must be a bad law, no?