It would be 100% ok for it to be a browser setting. It isn't though, because that would make too many people opt out. That's what the article is about.
I don't think a browser setting would make any difference. The setting would have to be either "I don't want to be tracked by anyone ever" or "I'm ok with being tracked by everyone all the time". Everyone would just choose the first setting. But just because someone has that setting doesn't mean you can't ask them specifically if they're ok with being tracked on your specific website for some specific purpose. So then you're back at the cookie banners.
(Also, if a lot of people did choose the 'everyone all the time' setting, that would arguably be a poor outcome, because it's unlikely that this is really what people want.)
The DNT (Do-Not-Track HTTP header) setting has died the moment Microsoft made it too easy to enable it during setup of Edge, making most of their users default to do-not-track.
The adtech will absolutely freak out and destroy any attempt to make such setting as soon as there's a risk of it working.
> The setting would have to be either "I don't want to be tracked by anyone ever" or "I'm ok with being tracked by everyone all the time".
The only alternative to that binary logic is cookie banners. So to be clear, you are advocating for cookie banners.
The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people do legitimately want option 1, which makes cookie banners redundant. The only reason that cookie banners exist is as a high pressure sales tactic to sell users into option 3.
The point is that you'd still get cookie banners even with option 1, because a site can always ask you if you're willing to override your default preference.
What you are describing is still option 3 (cookie banners). The only real option 1 would be for sites to give up on tracking users.
So yeah, you can never compel a site designer to stop doing a thing without compelling them to stop do that thing. The only middle ground is a middle ground.
It could. And the GDPR already bans dark UX patterns in consent popups (i.e. making it artificially difficult to refuse consent). But the law can’t realistically tell sites exactly how to design their UX.
We already have granular permissions for other things (like location queries) and it works out just fine. You allow things when they make sense and refuse when they don't. It could be resolved in a way that preserves usability, but still achieves a goal not tracking non-users via ads. I doubt that it would make PG particularly happy though.
The key difference with tracking is that it's based on intent. Technically there is no difference between a tracking cookie and any other cookie. It is just a question of its intended use.
Sure. If I'm asking a website to remember my user session, I expect and am happy to allow a cookie, even if it's a few extra clicks. When I visit a site I'm not a registered user of, no tracking is needed really.
