>It hardly matters in the court of law what you "could also say".

On the contrary, it's exactly what the court is there for.

... in a violation of GPDR, because user's informed consent was not received beforehand.

> it's exactly what the court is there for

I might have been more clear: it hardly matters what you or I could say — what does matter is only what the lawyers say. In this case, I assume that either A. the defendant's lawyers have brought this argument before the court, and the verdict still was what it was; or B. the defendant's lawyers have failed to bring this argument before the court.

The courts are not there to discuss arguments made in HN comments.

There is a case for third-party requests, and considering that some websites make tens and sometimes hundreds (eg Yahoo) of third-party requests, passing the burden of filtering those requests to the customer doesn't really scale.

The burden is fully on the website operator here. They wrote the software, and it's most certainly closed-source. Just as the burden of keeping my data safe on their backend is on them, the burden of keeping my data safe on my frontend is also on them.

I think it scales better than forcing millions of website providers to engage in the legal fiction that they are an intermediary between the user and all external content providers that are embedded on their page

All the embedding is being done by the people building the websites, so yes, they do have full control and therefore full responsibility.

Just because I don't perform a crime or violation myself, it doesn't automatically absolve me when I pay or ask someone to commit it.

> forcing millions of website providers

Millions? There are billions of website visitors, and most of those don't have any control or deep knowledge over their tools. There are only 3 significant browser technology suppliers at the moment, and none of them provides the hypothetical tools to users, only third parties, and those tools often break websites.

Website builders, however are significantly more technical and able to control their tech stack. If anything just hire another company. The burden should definitely be on them.

I agree that its a big problem that the big browsers do not act in the interest of their users, and that their vendors are in fact disincentivized to do so. That would be a good reason for antitrust action and public funding, since they should be public goods.

I don't see how this is relevant, but:

Again, whether those consent forms are understandable or not depends solely on how websites implement them. The fact they are confusing is purely because website operators want them to be.

These confusing forms are not a requirement of the GDPR. How they look and feel is up to the website hosting them. They go against the spirit and some go against the letter of the law.

The goal of GDPR is letting people answer to the question such as "Can I give your data to company X?". The fact that the internet became a cesspool of privacy violations doesn't change the original intent of the law.

> This approach seems equally ineffective for achieving what this regulation is intended to achieve, to not just to have the users sign away their rights with a click, but give them an understanding of what they give away.

The law already states that rejecting should be as easy as allowing. The fact websites don't make it means they're breaking the law, and I hope they get punished by it.

> I agree that its a big problem that the big browsers do not act in the interest of their users, and that their vendors are in fact disincentivized to do so

We already have a Do-Not-Track header, but websites refused to obey it for more than 10 years, to the point they were removed from browsers.

Solutions were always there. It is websites that chose not to comply.