> For a subset of "these websites".

So for websites that are not in that subset, they will still track you regardless of what you click on, so you still need browser-level protections for those websites, and those browser-level protections will also work on the websites that are in that subset, so you still gain nothing by clicking the No.

Yes. But "these websites" will then be prosecuted, their owners cannot enter the EU ever again without the risk of severe penalties, they cannot do business in the EU and can and often will, lose access to many services that do want to stay on the good side the EU (i.e. will see their google ads blocked, their stripe frozen, their hosting closed etc)

Edit: what I'm trying to say is: this "technical" problem has a real and working "solution" that's not technical at all: law and enforcement. Now, that won't work for all and everything, it never does. There will always be malicious, scammy, malware, criminal and illegal webservices around. But it makes it very hard for malicious actors to do so and make money.

Yeah but the question is how you, as a user, should best protect yourself. I'm saying clicking the "No" provides no advantage over using a browser that just protects you from tracking by default. Then it doesn't matter whether the website is following the law or whether the EU (where I don't live) will enforce the law or change it in the future or whatever.

> Now, that won't work for all and everything, it never does. There will always be malicious, scammy, malware, criminal and illegal webservices around.

Yeah, exactly. So if I have to protect myself from those websites anyway, I may as well apply the same protections to all websites. Clicking the "No" does nothing for me.

> So if I have to protect myself from those websites anyway, I may as well apply the same protections to all websites.

And what is the protection?

I posted links up thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43832541