I disagree with a number of premises stated in the article: > it essentially boils down to "take this cookie or no access for you" This is something GDPR expl

I disagree with a number of premises stated in the article: > it essentially boils down to "take this cookie or no access for you" This is something GDPR explicitly bans. "Consent" obtained this way is invalid; the site doesn't even have to bother asking at that point. > To continue chucking up cookie warnings to everyone and somehow expecting them to make an informed decision about the risks they present? 99% of people are going to click through them anyway No, sites don't have to chuck up cookie warnings. If the cookie warnings were actually compliant, i.e. didn't try to hide the "no" option behind several clicks, there would be very little incentive for the user to say yes, because "no" means the warning goes away just as well, plus the user doesn't get tracked. Of course, the sites realize that, and are setting up non-compliant "consent" dialogs that try to trick or pressure the user into "consenting". The solution to that is to prosecute the ones that do that until they stop. (I bet many of the sites set and use tracking cookies even before you close the dialog.) At that point, the sites can choose whether they want to annoy users or not, but since a large part of the users will click "no" at that point (since the sites can't really provide an incentive to click yes), they might as well stop using the trackers. And sites using cookies for functionality the user actually wants don't have to ask for consent for those cookies. If the site asks, it's because it wants to track you, and you have no reason to agree.