Analysis of economic and productivity losses caused by cookie banners in Europe

I am kind of frustrated by the widespread misunderstandings in this thread.

Laws are best when they are abstract, so that there is no need for frequent updates and they adapt to changing realities. The European "cookie law" does not mandate cookie banners, it mandates informed consent. Companies choose to implement that as a banner.

There is no doubt that the goals set by the law are sensible. It is also not evident that losing time over privacy is so horrible. In fact, when designing a law that enhances consumer rights through informed consent, it is inevitable that this imposes additional time spent on thinking, considering and acting.

It's the whole point, folks! You cannot have an informed case-by-case decision without spending time.

I partly agree but feel you’ve conflated a few things:

- Laws are best when abstract. This is true. Laws work best when they cover a class of behavior, not specific behaviors.

- Requiring informed consent is good. This I disagree with with because it is a hard to measure outcome. Abstract, yes, but to the point where nobody knows what it means. The only way to meet this in spirit is to go so far overboard that nobody can ever say you didn’t try hard enough.

- Mandating that huge populations spend time to make informed case by case decisions. This is like mandating pi=3. As soon as this became the goal the whole enterprise was doomed. The only way this happens is with notaries and witnesses , which is far too heavy a burden for visiting a website.

The whole thing is noble intent, but disproportionate to the problem and not aligned with the putative goals.

Regulation can be good, and it should be abstract, but it cannot mandate abstract outcomes. Imagine if speed limit signs said “speed limit: optimized balance of reduced time to destination and net cost of carbon emissions and amortized risk of accidents”

Sure I find it reasonable to disagree on these points.

I personally find informed consent to be a very desirable thing, because it aims at the goal of legislation, not at the means. If you think that citizens cannot, should not, or should not be required to profoundly understand what is happening to them in digital contexts, that's a specific point of view. From this you evaluate the trade-offs.

My personal (humanistic) perspective is that a profound understanding and practical control over our digital lives are the prerequisite for dignity, which is the ultimate goal of a state.