The problem is that the government often requires the providers/counter-parties to collect the data, so that a regulator can check for systemic discrimination.

It's a two way street. The companies doing the targeting lose money if their models are inaccurate.

If it's an official government form, there's usually verbiage stating that knowingly and willingly falsifying information is considered perjury or some such wording.

> The relevant facts are that the website owner voluntarily put the tracking code...

The civil discussion should now be about the punishment for that.

Regulation is required for handling people's data

The government wants these packages sent out to support its domestic surveillance initiative. It helps when 99% are unaware they exist.

On top of the GDPR/American concept of "it is all OK if there is consent" which applies to most organization, health related organizations face stronger HIPPA regulations in the US.

Damn near anything in business in the US is allowed with "opt in" where the opt in is literally the scene from Charlie and the Chocolate factory, including the part where you don't get to come after the factory for your death and dismemberment as stated in 1pt font after an entire chapter of reading to dull your attention.

easily 90+% of people are subject to tens of thousands of pages of contract terms they signed but don't know or understand. It's madness.

Only when Congress might be embarrassed. The VPPA exists so we can't find out what videos they watch in their spare time between orgies.

Very rarely. Most of the consumer protection laws were passed before Reagan in 1980. We did get the CFPB after the 2008 financial meltdown but it's been under attack ever since.

The point of the comment is to spread toxic and deadly cynicism.

Doesn’t really seem like the environment where the common persons going to get more rights or protections since the POTUS and SCOTUS are currently ripping those up while Congress sits in the cuck chair.

"Citizens" United (which allows unlimited corporate political donations by classifying them as "speech", for those out of the loop) has fundamentally changed the core incentive structures of the modern political landscape. To compare a pre-CU world to a post-CU world when it comes to matters at the intersection of corporate interests and government regulatory / legislative power is comparing apples to oranges.

We need to overturn CU if we want to be able to go back to a world where government serves people rather than multinational conglomerates.

And in some countries people are only given a choice of two, neither of which benefit the population.

In some countries a major party has succeeded in convincing a majority of voters to vote against their self interest by leveraging "red meat" topics such as abortion, jesus and guns.

Is that even possible in the US anymore with donations and corporate backing being so important to a campaign?