[kekumu]

Because consent must be "freely given". As soon as you start attaching consequences unrelated to the utility itself, you're making a decision less and less freely.

The greater the power imbalance, the less free the choice. Social networks are a great example of this. You can choose not to use a particular one, but what's the alternative if everyone is already on that platform? You can go without, but what if it's LinkedIn, and there can be a real impact on your career?

[spookthesunset]

> Because consent must be "freely given"

But you do have a choice. Don't use the site if you don't consent to its rules. Pretty straightforward choice.

[takeda]

Yes same as you have a choice to live without computers and electricity.

[kekumu]

> Pretty straightforward choice.

It is, if you don't think the rest of what I wrote is worth any consideration.

[manigandham]

You're making a philosophical argument about what is a "real choice", precisely the problem with the "based-on-principle" GDPR. All this will do is create a big mess if/when this gets into real litigation.