Okay, cool, don't opt out then. I on the other hand would prefer to see ads based on the content I'm viewing for which no other data from me needs to be passed around.

In fact, ideally, the User Agent would advertise our privileges. Like a DNT option and websites would respond with a paywall or something instead and be expected (by law) to respect the DNT. Then, on first load, browsers could say, "Do you wish to allow tracking?" and warn about the added paywall cost vs. the tracking cost.

Well, I quite like that part. It pushes content providers to look for surveillance free business models, such as content based ads that aren't personalized. Why should selling your data vs. paywall be the only options? To protect Google's ad cartel?

That seems like a weird spin. Businesses are being regulated here, not individuals. I don't see how the law would control me.

It doesn't. That's merely one way how businesses could comply with the law, the other option would be to look for better business models as I said in the comment you replied to.

I don't think they do, given that most people don't read them, and a large percentage of them are written so it's very hard to tell what they are really saying unless you're a lawyer.

It's possible people genuinely don't care. It's also possible they don't understand the implications, and/or that they trust these companies more than they ought to.

First, having to read a long block of legalese on every visit to a website (which would be necessary because those privacy polices can change without notice at any time) is unsupportable. If people actually did that, it would render the web completely unusable. The average normal person can't be blamed for saying "screw that", nor can their attitude about privacy really be inferred from it.

Second, even for those of us who are more concerned than the average person about these issues, reading privacy policies is a pointless waste of time. Once you have a lawyer interpret them for you, it turns out that the vast majority of them say the same thing -- they are reserving the right to do anything they want with my data. That means that I can safely predict what privacy policies say, so there's no need to read them.

Just because people use a service doesn’t mean they have read the terms and conditions. Therefore, your anecdote is just that.

A similar analogy is that I may not want to read my credit card bill, that doesn't eliminate the responsibility I have to pay it. Or, I may not want to read my visa card notice they send informing of a change in the APR or other conditions for service. however, my continued use of the card is the standard way one accepts new or changed TOS.

Maintaining ignorance doesn't excuse the actions.

Not really relevant to a change in the law.

Then again GDPR requires opt-in, but most sites ignore that and many make the opt out extremely time consuming.

> This is not evidence of numbers, but I have an existence proof in that I also personally know a lot of people who know and insist on not opting out.

Most people I know would interpret that as "I know I'm not the only one because". After all, I specifically say "not evidence of numbers" and I also specifically say "existence proof". I find your response baffling.