Do you have a better system fix than what EU is trying to do?
- deny is the default: one button to deny everything but one accept button for every partner
- respect DO NOT TRACK, and force software/hardware providers to enable it by default
- making payments for non-tracking illegal
- remove or rephrase "legitimate interest" ruling, because providers use that as an excuse to enable everything
- and probably: prohibit any other dark pattern, or at least make it extremely hard to implement
Yes, that's in the law. I you do not click on consent, the default is deny everything, and a button to refuse everything should be easy to access.
> - making payments for non-tracking illegal
In the law too.
> - remove or rephrase "legitimate interest" ruling, because providers use that as an excuse to enable everything
True, this loophole was introduced by UK/US lobbyists at the time if I remember correctly. My (very small, 3 dev) company at the time worked on health data and managed to find itself in the arcanes of Brussels because anything related to PII security was good news for us.
- and probably: prohibit any other dark pattern, or at least make it extremely hard to implement
This is the courts who can judge that.
The main issue with the gdpr law is local enforcement. It is honestly well written and easy to understand, which is why you have so much legal loopholes, but EU courts are RAI rather than RAW (our fast americanisation is changing that though).
Part of the problem with this is the website operators who maliciously interpret this to mean "also refuse the cookie that says what I selected", so you have to select it every time you visit. (I even hit a site a few weeks ago that required it on every page when I refused.)
This keeps surfacing in discussions about tracking. I'm wondering how do you propose for b2c software companies to make money if they can't either properly advertise or require you to pay to opt-out? Is this just an entitled leftie thing ("Elon Musk should pay for my Instagram!") or is there a genuine though-out plan for another reasonable business model?
Advertising does not require invasive and pervasive tracking. There's no world in which a b2c company needs my precise geo location for 12 years: https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1817122117093056541
Why the hell are people defending 24/7 monitoring at scale that would make even Stasi or Stalin pause and think "are we going too far?"? 1984 wasn't an instruction manual.
Why are you so opposed to pay for a tier without tracking? I'm still not following.
> Why the hell are people defending 24/7 monitoring at scale that would make even Stasi or Stalin pause and think "are we going too far?"? 1984 wasn't an instruction manual.
Stasi or KGB weren't "opt in" for their citizens while social networks definitely are. For example, Twitter won't allow me to access the images in the post you linked because I deleted my account as soon as Musk completely enshittified it and I'm doing just fine without it.
Because advertising does not require invasive and pervasive tracking.
The better question is: why are you so happy defending 24/7 surveillance of everything you do?
> Stasi or KGB weren't "opt in" for their citizens
What you're proposing isn't opt in either. You're proposing "pervasive and invasive tracking, or pay an arbitrary sum randomly defined by the tracking industry". That is, literally pay for access to internet without tracking, or else. All based on a completely unproven assumption that tracking is required for ads to function. It's not.
> while social networks definitely are.
Indeed. Because tracking is happening only on social networks.
> For example, Twitter won't allow me to access the images
Here's a direct link. And no, this pop up wasn't on an "opt out social network". It was on a random site (can't remember now which one): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTe23o5WwAACyNJ?format=png&name=...
Okay, so just ignore tracking-advertisement supported option and sign up for payed account. What is your issue with this again?
> What you're proposing isn't opt in either. You're proposing "pervasive and invasive tracking, or pay an arbitrary sum randomly defined by the tracking industry". That is, literally pay for access to internet without tracking, or else.
This is incorrect. GDPR already forbids tracking without consent, so services you didn't sign up for (the whole internet) can't legally track you. Obviously, then everything would cost you actual money not just social networks.
> Here's a direct link. And no, this pop up wasn't on an "opt out social network". It was on a random site (can't remember now which one): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GTe23o5WwAACyNJ?format=png&name=...
This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. GDPR already forbids random sites and ad networks from tracking you without your explicit consent.
Somehow the only option you propose and defend is: "pay, or be tracked".
Why would I want a world where the only way not to be tracked is to pay?
Moreover, your whole premise is based on the completely unsubstantiated claim that tracking is required for advertisment and for the poor hapless b2c companies.
> This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. GDPR already forbids random sites and ad networks from tracking you without your explicit consent.
You're literally saying that in your vision you are either tracked, or have to pay for access.
Which is 90% of modern internet
> I still don't get why you expect to dictate to businesses how to price their products
I still don't understand why you keep defending pervasive and invasive tracking of everything you do 24/7 across every site, and device, and service you visit or use even in passing.
> voting with your wallet has always been the way to express your disagreement
No. It has rarely worked. Especially in the face of supranational corporations, and thousands of data brokers.
I mean, the top comment to the news is this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49106733 about a TV that the person already buys with their money, and that still tracks and sells their data to over 200 "partners". And every TV you can buy at the store these days does that. How can I "vote with my wallet"?
Or do you think fifa.com (referenced in the article under which we discuss this) needs money to run their site? FIFA has a revenue of $15 billion dollars from the World Cup alone: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jul/18/fifa-record... And yet: https://www.fifa.com/ads.txt
> EU mAkE eViL Zuck serVE mE fOr fRee!!!11
Literally no one is saying that. You are the only one pretending that invasive and pervasive tracking is the only way to serve ads or sponsor content and sites.
So, tell me, why is it you are defending tracking so much?
At least ever since Musk syphoned billions of dollars from the government, then illegally intervened in elections at home and abroad, then went on to destroy USAID, then went after pension funds I believe it would be just fair if he was made to pay personally for some expenses of private people, yes. You don't have to be particularly left to find that.
Article 6 and 7 of the GDPR
> respect DO NOT TRACK, and force software/hardware providers to enable it by default
There is other software and other areas of human activity than just cookies and browsers.
Also, with "deny is default" you shouldn't really nead the DNT. But tell that to the ad/tracking industry
> making payments for non-tracking illegal
Generally derived from GDPR. See e.g. recital 43 https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-43/
> remove or rephrase "legitimate interest" ruling, because providers use that as an excuse to enable everything
It's there because actual legitimate activities like security audits or fraud detection would not be possible.
EU expects companies to act as adults, but here we are.
> prohibit any other dark pattern, or at least make it extremely hard to implement
This cannot be properly specified. And existing laws and regulations already cover that.
See the article we're commenting under. And noyb's previous cases: https://noyb.eu/en/where-did-all-reject-buttons-come