Every site needs analytics no, unless you're going to walk in the dark, and they need payment processors. If it was just about ads, they could have limited it to ads, like 'tracking for the purpose of advertising,' though even then is a press release advertising, and every serious company is going to have press releases.
They could have instead targeted it, and applied it, to third party ad providers only, like Google. And, btw, Google is big enough they could have just outright named it. They're worth as much as the GDP of Germany. Why not just make a Google law?
So yeah, maybe good intentions but it clearly shows the EU parliament is still too young and inexperienced.
Nope, you don't need analytics. You might want analytics, and you might want them enough to bother every single visitor with a popup so you can have them, but you don't need them.
And if you decide you need them, you can do them server side. That's not as good? Oh well. See above about want vs need.
Why not just make a Google law? Because Google is far from the only abuser. Using a VPN that routes through Europe is a real eye-opener. At least whatever country I got routed through apparently required that cookie banners include a list of every single partner who got your data. Pretty much every site had hundreds of them. One was literally over a thousand. No, the entire industry is rotten. And the epidemic of cookie banners just shows how rotten it is. They can't even be shamed into behaving.
I think at this point everyone has forgotten what problem they were trying to address exactly, because they clearly haven't addressed it.
I think it was something like Google knows what you eat, or will eat, for breakfast. Ok, Facebook too and some other trillion dollar companies. That is cross websites infrastructure, data mining, etc, etc - platforms in one word. Why not apply all this to the ones doing it though, instead of making all websites responsible?
In regards to analytics, the library needs to know what book you borrowed. Sure, a website doesn't 'need' in some platonic sense to know what article was most read today, but the EU parliament clearly does.
It is a hard problem though, what they were trying to address, but arguing that they were effective beyond showing that there is an EU jurisdiction is not at this point a persuasive argument.
It's fine though. This is still a very new parliament. It can and hopefully will learn from the experience and maybe even make an effective use of that very new EU jurisdiction, like maybe break up these tech monopolies, or try.
They could have instead targeted it, and applied it, to third party ad providers only, like Google. And, btw, Google is big enough they could have just outright named it. They're worth as much as the GDP of Germany. Why not just make a Google law?
So yeah, maybe good intentions but it clearly shows the EU parliament is still too young and inexperienced.