Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now you know which websites are willing to absolutely ruin your experience just to abuse you. Which is absolutely all of them. I guess the legislators wanted the popups to be annoying so publishers would be forced not to import their party scripts. Turns out publishers can’t stay open without the ads that pay their bills which means popups are the new normal, to the point where when I see a website that doesn’t hav…
No, the legislators didn't want the pop-ups to be annoying. They didn't even require pop-ups. Who wants the pop-ups to be annoying and riddled with dark patterns are the ones implementing it, exactly to cause this kind of reaction on you so you start hating the law, not the ones who are trying their best to skirt around it, to find the loopholes and abuse them. To make your experience as poor as possible while being…
This is the point: the legislators were exceedingly naive, and created a bad outcome.
'National Geographic' is not evil, they are struggling and most of these sites are not giant entities with well-staffed experts.
It's a good example of poorly designed legislation.
"This is part of their game, make the experience miserable to people start getting angry at politicians."
This is completely false and conspiratorial, almost disturbingly so.
These are normal companies, with normal people, pragmatic policies.
The legislation has unconditionally failed at least in this specific way - all we have now are constant popups. That's the reality of the change.