> Your free to not use 23andMe if you don't consent

That is not how consent works.

If I am selling you an apple, but thereby you give me consent to use its genetics for research, and without that we do not do business, then there is nothing optional about it; no opt-in, no opt-out.

Opt-in is when the flag is disabled by default, and you can enable it if you want to, and use the product regardless of your choice.

Opt-out is when the flag is enabled by default, and you can disable it if you want to, and use the product regardless of your choice.

That is how consent should work, if I don't consent I should not buy your apple. Buying your apple is optional, I'm not required to buy your apple.

Opt-in is when I buy your apple.

Opt-out is when I don't buy your apple.

You're not buying apples, though. You're buying "apples+X". That's a different from "apples". If your seller is upfront about that then I and people who want just an apple can go somewhere else for fruit. Most, though, aren't upfront about it.

If you want to buy just apples then you should buy it from other seller who just sells apples.

That is up to our governments to decide if such is allowed or not. For example, it isn't allowed to sell a gun or drugs with an apple (at least not here in The Netherlands, YMMV).

That you can decide to not go for the entire package is not what we disagree on (apart from above, I suppose).

What we were discussing is that the consent is optional; it is not in any of these examples. It is part of the package deal; then you don't call it opt-in or opt-out, as that allows you to opt-in or opt-out of something which is otherwise not in your direct advantage, but is in the other party's advantage.

That should be up to us (not government) to decide if such is allowed or not.

>What we were discussing is that the consent is optional

Yes the consent is optional, in the sense you are allowed to opt-out by not buying the apple or buying it from someone else or produce it yourself.

> That should be up to us (not government) to decide if such is allowed or not.

It is up to us to elect those who represent us in our governments.

Sure, I will elect those who allow consent as I describe.

All in the name of "liberty" for businesses, so they can vulture on the weak (the consumer). Land of the free, indeed.

Its a mutually beneficial transaction between the business and the customer.

Let's say there are two people who are supposed to get a punishment. One is found guilty by a fair trial, the other one is not found guilty by a fair trial.

For some superficial rule, I may only punish the person who has been found guilty by also punishing the person who has not been found guilty.

Can you explain to me how this is fair?

Here is where you and I differ. You find it OK when a party (e.g. business) uses your private data to sell or otherwise use for their benefit. I believe such personal data is ultimately my say. And I believe only informed opt-in (optional, not part of a package deal ie. how GDPR works) is a fair way to deal with such situation.

> That is not how consent works.

Yes, it is. I tell you all the terms of the deal in advance, and you choose to accept it or not. If you don't want my apples, go to the next guy.

I do want your apples, I don't want you to sell my personal information.