>No offense, but this feels like a “99%” and “most” that is something less than rigorous.

I've read the contracts I have to sign, and generally this throws people off drastically. When I ask, they tell me I'm the first to read them. Things like leases at a place that has been around decades and I'm the first to sit down and read before signing. While it isn't rigorous, from my experience with wet ink legal documents, saying 1% do read EULAs and privacy policies is a very optimistic over estimation by magnitudes.

I think that indicates that the legal documents weren't written to be read, more than people are too lazy to read them. They were written for a lawyer and for use in court, and it's not realistic to bring in a lawyer for every EULA and contract we encounter.

And just as honestly, what are we going to do - say no? Saying no is more and more simply not allowed if you want to use a service. I've had job offers who would rather have me walk than change the terms of employment. There's not a website out there which allows you to use it if you do not consent to their EULA. Hell, I've encountered a EULA when starting my (purchased, not leased) car.

You can't even post on Hacker News without consenting to 39 pages worth of privacy policy and TOS.

And that is why I think the core of the issue is consent. The power difference between the lawyers who understand the legal system and write these documents and the users who are forced to agree to use the service is so great that consent cannot exist between the two parties. We legally allow it, much like some countries will legally let a 9 year old sign some document and then hold them to it, but that is a legal fiction that needs to be done away with. Of course this would be a massive shock to how we do things (how would you sign up for a loan), but that alone doesn't justify allowing such abuse of consent to continue.

> I’d add that GDPR explicitly forbids just the kind of “press yes to forfeit all of your rights” crap we’ve seen before. I realize that some sites are still trying to get away with it, it it’s non-compliant.

I have yet to see a non-terrible GDPR screen, and I'm an American. Every single one so far has been either a giant box of doom, or a giant modal of doom with a dozen checkboxes and a freakin' contract on it.

Nope, don't care, I just want to read the one paragraph of your blog - that's it.

The Atlantic has a great system, and it’s all opt-in as required by GDPR.

Thought it was pretty common knowledge that people don't read anything contractual.

Anecdotally i have never personally witnessed any other than the most academically inclined legal nerds be interested in any terms of service or legal docs. Family, university peers, user analysis from my own services - all i have ever seen is frantic clicking until people get to where they want.

Just googled and it seems i am on point:

http://www.businessinsider.com/deloitte-study-91-percent-agr...

91 percent!

Also my point is not that the GDPR is stupid. I think most of the new protections are fair. I am just pointing out that the "one button click to consent" is completely meaningless because people have no idea what they are doing, are tired, are stressed out, or just don't care (most people).

Here's an overview of reading on the web in general: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-little-do-users-read/

> We made murder illegal and now nobody gets murdered

No, we made murder illegal and now we have a system to deal with murderers when they kill someone.

Out of analogy, we made non-consensual data collection illegal, and now we have a mean to handle the situation when it arises.