The lack of enforcement is consistent across all companies big and small so I don’t think it counts as regulatory capture.

Tbh, Google and Facebook, after several enforcement actions, now provide a simple "Reject All" button, while most smaller websites don't.

I'd argue that's the opposite of regulatory capture.

	▲	rglullis 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yeap, but the thing is: - they don't care about the cookies they are setting on their properties, if most of the functionality they have require you to be authenticated anyway. - These "smaller websites" are exactly the ones more likely than not to be Google's and Facebook's largest source of data, because these sites are the ones using Google Analytics/Meta Pixel/etc.
	▲	Fargren 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		This is not my experience at all with Facebook. Since six months ago or so, Facebook is saying my three option are to pay them a subscription, accept tracking, or not use their products. I went with option three, but my reading of the GDPR as that it's illegal for them to ask me to make this choice. I'm in Spain, this is probably not the same worldwide.
	▲	Nextgrid 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The "Reject all" does not in fact reject all. They are taking extreme liberties with the "legitimate interest" clause to effectively do all tracking and analytics under it. The YouTube consent screen for example includes this as a mandatory item: > Measure audience engagement and site statistics to understand how our services are used and enhance the quality of those services I don't believe this complies with the GDPR to have this mandatory.