>It's like going into a store and telling the clerk "please don't look at me, and when I leave please forget I ever came here".

I feel these cute analogies make the mistake of equating a human seeing and remembering you (maybe even writing your name down in a notebook) with a machine doing the same thing.

There's significant qualitative differences, mainly that the machine has perfect memory and can effortlessly share and collect your information with other machines.

...and that your data passes through a series of intermediaries which have the potential to be compromised.

That only makes the point for which the analogy is used stronger though.

You realize that "wishful-thinking gesturing" is what it looks like when privacy advocates lose the political game, right? The answer is not to ignore politics, the answer is to get better at politics so we don't lose next time.

Putting that in banners is so stupid, the way lynx prompts the user on each cookie was way better and I wish the larger browsers did that.

Agreed. Cookie permissions should be handled on the browser side, similarly to how e.g. webcam permissions are handled. Would allow for a "don't ask me again" response that doesn't itself rely on cookies.

I'd love this, cookie banners are a plague and the ones that get through my adblocker get manually blacklisted on sight. I get the intention, but the lawmakers couldn't have got the wrong end of the stick harder if they were actively trying to in my opinion. It's like the words "alarm fatigue" never appeared in their analysis of the situation.

> It's like going into a store and telling the clerk "please don't look at me, and when I leave please forget I ever came here".

Or saying "Please don't record me, I don't give my consent". But you are already in there archives. Facial recognise so they know what you like to buy.

Cookies have “0 technical incidence on tracking”? What’s “incidence”? Why do advertisers like to use cookies if it does not help them?