As I click my 10,000th cookie modal to read this article, I am forced to ask if this legislation has made my web experience better in any way, to which the answer is a resounding no. I understand the importance of it, but please prioritise revising its shortcomings rather than doubling down on being the most tech-hostile region in the developed world.

As clear as can be yes.

Now you know which websites are willing to absolutely ruin your experience just to abuse you. The implications can be seen pretty much everywhere in society, it is a momentous step in the right direction.

It's also interesting to see how Google has reacted to this. Them being the owner of Chrome, they could have implemented a new API in no time which would allow advertisers to use an alternative to cookies. An API where I as a user can define my preferences regarding targeted advertising, and the site owner can query these preferences.

An API where advertisers can also store advertising-ids and more site-specific, tracking-related settings into (if the user grants this permission), giving them the possibility to move away from the use of cookies for this purpose. Then it should become obligatory to not use cookies for tracking and ad-related purposes.

There are cases where 3rd-party cookies are important, and I'm a bit afraid that Google wants to remove them altogether.

I personally don't care about non-personalized ads. If the advertisers see that it makes no sense to offer me a random ad, they may start looking at the context of the page where they are serving there ads, in order to serve me a bit more relevant ads. Then again, there are others who absolutely love personalized ads. So this solution would be a fair offering to the advertisement industry.

This API could even be so advertiser-friendly that the user could even specify categories of interest so that the advertiser doesn't have to guess through tracking.

(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, including the seller-side of Turtledove. Speaking only for myself.)