I think that the way the EU seems to be trying to make such laws is no good. Requiring the web page to request consent for such a thing doesn't makes sense. Rat

I think that the way the EU seems to be trying to make such laws is no good. Requiring the web page to request consent for such a thing doesn't makes sense. Rather, they could require that: web browsers allow user to disable and configure these things easily, that you could figure out how to access it using your own software (e.g. so that they could not block something like youtube-dl), and that web pages that do not need them should avoid such scripts and cookies where possible. Furthermore, they could make illegal that businesses use up the customer's power for their uses (advertising, spyware, DRM, etc). > If anything, using an adblocker should be "more" illegal than what Youtube is doing. I don't think so. If YouTube wants to run their software on your computer then it is your own job to decide how that software runs (if it does so at all). If you run your own software, to display it differently or whatever reason, then you can have the right to do. (If you tried to put it on their computer without their permission that should be illegal, just as much as the other way around.) There might be some reason to prohibit it if it involved using up their power and bandwidth, or by repeatedly sending bad data, but if you are blocking ads then that reduces the power usage instead, anyways. Rather, what should be made illegal is if they sell or provide to you the software or hardware that uses up your power for their use instead, whether for spying or ads or implementing unnecessary restrictions or whatever. (This does not apply to the old style ads on TV and radio which do not involve specialized software on the client side to display them; they are just a part of the show. If you want to block ads you still should, but you would have to add that by yourself.)