We had a great thing going when websites ran on tracking. Nobody was actually harmed in any tangible way. Now every news site wants me to pay $20/month to read it.
To me it seems that the more the web has become monetised the less useful it has become. Low-effort blogspam that only exists to draw ad revenue increasingly drowns out “real” content. So I’m not so sure we “had a great thing going”.
If cookie consent forms reduce privacy violations, lower ad revenue and push these “content creators” off the web, that seems like a win-win to me.
> we had a good thing going when websites ran on tracking
Yeah, and you'll be damned if you ever have to adjust how your business works in order to satisfy the desires of customers not to be tracked and monitored.
I, and most people, have UNIVERSALLY found that we can just skip paying by skipping reading and lose out on nothing. And now we're not being tracked! Hooray! What's not to love? We can't read as much poorly-written op-eds? I think we'll be fine.
You can still run ads on your site without requiring user consent. It’s the personalisation of those ads that requires consent.
TV, Radio, Magazines, Newspapers etc have worked for years just fine with generic, non-personalised ads. Or in the case of cable/sat, non-personalised ads + subscription fees.
Radio, and print media worked for years, but the Internet absolutely eviscerated their funding models. It's a bit late to imagine closing the Pandora's box of personalized advertising without the mother of all temper tantrums and PR campaigns from the ad industry.
