Determining whether a user has "consented" is impossible, as evidenced by this thread, so the law is folly.

In a highly technical sense, it is maybe not. In a legal sense, which applies human common sense when necessary, it absolutely is.

it is easy to determine if a user has consented. but if you go out of your way to mix in “i consented” and “i want this box to stop annoying me as quickly as possible” into one bucket, the fact that you have trouble separating them is a problem you created

Yeah, some other comments made that point more clearly. I think I understand better (it seems to be similar to anti-prostitution laws, where it is illegal to trade something you can give for free)

It does seem to lead to some strange loopholes though, like requiring an account for access.

> It does seem to lead to some strange loopholes though, like requiring an account for access.

That's false.

Requiring an account or even payment for access does not replace or imply consent of any kind, and all rules still apply even if the user is still logged in or paying.

In fact, it's probably more complicated for logged-in users since you have to comply to requirements of data-scrubbing, removing/anonymising logins/emails/passwords from your database upon request, etc.

How could you anonymize an email address for an account? You are going to need it to reset passwords

You have to do it upon request.

Meaning: more code that you have to write and time you have to spend.