I think you're actually running into and mixing up two opposing requirements: 1. Those who support the tracking and see the banners an imposition of the law. T

I think you're actually running into and mixing up two opposing requirements: 1. Those who support the tracking and see the banners an imposition of the law. They may come across as supporting the banners because they feel companies should be allowed require customers agree to this, though ultimately they'd rather no banners and to just track as done in the wild west days. 2. Those who support the privacy legislation and feel users should be able to prevent tracking and see the banners as dark pattern coercion so companies can claim compliance. They may come across as supporting the banners because of their stance that companies shouldn't track by default, but ultimately they'd rather there are no banners and either: (2a) companies just deal with the resulting non-viability of privacy invading business models (2b) advertising returns to a less privacy invading model as its a zero sum game so if everyone is tracking then you feel you must, but if no one is then advertisers have proven their willingness to accept less invasive models in other fields where more intrusive models are already infeasible (broadcast TV ads aren't yet trying to determine who specifically is watching, the viewability rates of "the side of a bus" must be miniscule compared to web ads, etc.)