I figured this reply would be coming.

Ages of consent (no matter the context) are basically ballpark guesses. It’s not like every 20 year and 364 day old lacks the mental capacity to responsibly drink alcohol and every 21 year old does. As a society we’ve settled on these ages as being reasonable averages. It is what it is and absent any realistic alternative (cognitive tests before a browser launch is permitted?) it’ll stay that way.

I don't think that's a fully accurate analogy though when applied to this context. I think the argument here is that most people don't have even the most basic understanding of what exactly it is they're agreeing to in the first place. It's like if the ABV of every alcoholic drink was written in hieroglphics as the solution to a quadratic equation. And some nerds would care to learn about how to decipher them but most people would never bother because its far too much hassle.

In society we consider consent/contracts that were entered to without understanding by one party to be null and void in many scenarios. Its a reason for example that most EULAs are dubiously enforcable (ofc it depends on how reasonable the eula clause being litigated is) there have been a good few rulings that release users from having to abide by them because they can't be expected to know their own obligations for every one of myriad services they use daily.

The alternative is to not allow tracking at all.