> they have always been about the tracking itself!

Actually they are about reading from or writing to terminal equipment of user that is not done for "sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network" or "strictly necessary in order for the provider of an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user to provide the service". Some safety-related exceptions are possible via ePD Article 15, but those need to be separately added to the local law. That's why things like functional cookies require consent as well.

Of course there is also the GDPR layer on top of this.

▲

lesuorac an hour ago | parent [-]

Eh reads like a “civil war was about states rights not slavery” argument.

The thing the site is doing that isn’t “strictly necessary” is always tracking.

	▲	buzer 32 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Point is that tracking isn't the only thing that's not "strictly necessary". And additionally that "strictly necessary" is tied to something specific: internet society service. That includes a very specific requirement: "Normally provided for remuneration". That's why e.g. public authorities should not (usually) be allowed to rely on it, public services are not often provided for remuneration in EU-law sense. It also limits the exception in relation to e.g. employment.
	▲	what 28 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Well now the thing that isn’t “strictly necessary” and they’re not allowed to do is remember my no cookie preference.