It still doesn't change the fundamental right to consent.
The same way, most tech privacy consent is assumed, not explicit. Users dismiss popups because they want to use the app and don't care what you do with the data. Maybe later they will care, but not in the moment...
Did you miss my sarcastic little requote blurb that stated exactly that? Or do you normally rephrase the exact same point with added ad hominem attacks, and somehow frame it as a counterpoint?
> The same way, most tech privacy consent is assumed, not explicit.
And yet, you still have a right to it. In both instances.
Anyways, the "right" you have to explicit sexual consent is not really there. In that, you cannot go to court and say "I said no" and get any meaningful damages or a conviction without other evidence. Similarly, courts treat these popups as essentially unreadable and you cannot go to court and say "They clicked "Allow"" and get away with anything unreasonable.
> The vast majority (>95%) of people do not understand when to give consent or how to voice a no; and either always accepts, always rejects, or always tunes out.
There's consent reframed to another subject where we've (pretty universally) agreed that it is still a fundamental right.
Things are easy to waive away when you pettyfog them into cute little abstractions; which is why people discuss the fundamental meaning of things and not niche instantiations of them.
All but 1 person out of 7bln could read the consent form and, in an informed manner, accept/deny it. It wouldn't matter, all 7bln still have a right to consent.