I still find it odd how I'm constantly being asked if I'm fine with a website storing information in a place I have full control over. In theory it's the perfect method, privacy wise, it's just the user-agents who have dropped the ball massively.
I made a minimal Chrome extension for it and I've noticed a few sites are actually compliant: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/gpc-enabler/ilknagn...
We're in the weird situation where we're banning what is by far the best and most privacy preserving solution in the name of privacy.
I mean can you come up with a way that is better than letting a user store data locally in their full control?
How can the browser know what the cookie is being used for?
Just make users make the choice, once, and for every website up front when they setup their browser.
The mistake was assuming companies can feel shame.
Why aren't people responding to the law in the way I want them to?! lol
Legislate the behavior you want to see, not the behavior you hope will be a side-effect. You can't say, "the law is fine, it's the children that are wrong" when sites responded to the incentives they were placed under. The system finds an equilibrium at "everyone keeps doing exactly what they were doing before, just with a banner" and that's entirely the fault of the law. The incentives even go to far as to punish defectors because anyone who does right by their users loses money.