Sure, I'm not a psychopath, I understand the usefulness of laws. I just don't think the restriction in question is reasonable. To me, it seems like a choice an individual should make for themselves: access or data?

That would create perverse incentives and make the web a worse place.

The point of the law is quite clear: allowing people to use the web without having anyone force them into giving away personal information.

Sure, some companies won't be able to be creepy to users, but that was an acceptable tradeoff to the law.

In theory, in practice users consent and move on. You’ve just added an annoying extra step on every site. Victory?

Or users decline and move on, since decline is supposed to be just as easy as consent.

They could, I just don't personally see that as a clear cut win for the web.

If UX is important, then don't track users. There's no consent required if you're not tracking.

Collecting data and being annoying are entirely optional and a choice made by companies. The law is a still a partial victory for privacy.

It may be optional but it seems to be the standard rather than the exception.

I just don't see people really caring about their privacy. When given the choice between convenience and privacy people generally choose convenience. As someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, I just end up annoyed.

Just because something is a standard doesn't mean it's right. It also doesn't mean the law shouldn't discourage it.

And just because people don't care doesn't mean a company is automatically allowed to track people.

If the law were followed by the letter and companies weren't using dark patterns or ambiguous marketing-speak to convince people to allow cookies, only people with pro-tracking stances would allow it.