> I wonder what results you would see for something like yahoo, the daily mail, reddit, or other sites that heavily rely on ad revenue, which attempt to force the user to accept the cookies through non-obvious no buttons, or long processes to opt out of cookies.

I wonder what's the best of shaming/reporting these examples and if an effective way exists[1]. If you have any ideas, sources, anything—please share.

GDPR consent screens are pure dark UX.

Yes, sometimes the information/actions are buried under a dozen of useless screens, but in some cases these changes are fairly subtle, like reversed the 'active' and 'inactive' states for Reject and Accept buttons on mobile, or things glitching, just a little bit. There's an obvious effort put into make things not only complicated, but also buggy.

So _fear, uncertainty and doubt_ all over again.

As someone who worked both on GDPR/Adtech/consent frameworks and privacy I still struggle to understand how some of these things are legal and what can we do to change it.

[1] Digression: Publisher pressure is one potential solution, but a limited one. Some premium publishers don't want to be associated with this kind of creepy UX. But, at the same time until we've completely killed cookie-driven behavioural targeting (and the alternatives, behavioural, not contextual) higher CPMs/ad revenue will keep the other publishers quiet. Ironically, behavioural targeting is mostly bullshit, and CMPs inflated, but that's a different story.