Devil's advocate argument: if they were giving you something in return, and that could be cash, but it might also be "you can have this content for free".

In the UK a few news sites have changed cookie banners to "you can accept and see this stuff for free, or you can sign up for a subscription, which would you prefer?". It's the only time I hit accept (and then clear browser history).

If blanket preferences from browser signals became the norm, a segment might open up where you would configure preferences and a data broker would make sure you get something in return for your data. At minimum it might force paywalled publishers to consider that as a "lite" subscription option.

▲

inigyou 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's been ruled illegal in the EU, but EU sites still do it. Basically, the consent exception only applies if the user isn't coerced into it. Because coerced consent isn't consent.

▲

troupo 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> but it might also be "you can have this content for free".

ads don't require invasve and pervasive tracking

▲

alt227 4 hours ago | parent [-]

You seem to have missed the point. No ads dont require those things, but companies could start offering content in return for those things instead of ads.

	▲	Alpha3031 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		As I understand it, it is the position of several DPAs that denial of access entirely (i.e. "consent or pay") could contravene the "freely given" requirement of GDPR in most cases, though this has thus far not been tested in court. (see e.g. https://iapp.org/news/a/cjeu-clarifies-cookie-consent-requir... https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/edpb-consent-or-pay-models-s... )
	▲	troupo 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> but companies could start offering content in return for those things instead of ads. Again, that is not a requirement. If your argument is that they give us content for free because of ads, ads don't require pervasive and invasive tracking. Or hiding stuff behind paywalls (since ads pay for it).