The argument being made is that Google’s consent for tracking asserted in their ToS is not “valid” (admittedly, my word) because a law (the authority) says it i

The argument being made is that Google’s consent for tracking asserted in their ToS is not “valid” (admittedly, my word) because a law (the authority) says it is so. This is ignoring that my argument just happens to disagree with this authority. I think it’s because I said “valid” which might sound like valid “in terms of the law” (and that’s actually still debatable). I mean to say it more philosophically. Per my opinion, it’s “valid” as informed consent for new accounts. Basically, I’m arguing that these “many places” shouldn’t have made this form of consent legally invalid if that is indeed the case. (Of course, it gets hairier when considering existing accounts and unilateral changes to the ToS; I still don’t exactly think I am mistaken with my understanding but I seem to have expressed it poorly.)