Oh they understand consent. They also want to make people accidentally give consent or to mislead them into consent. Their entire business model relies on exploitation of people - and consent is merely a roadblock in exploitation efforts.

> They also want to make people accidentally give consent or to mislead them into consent.

Which is a logical impossibility. You can't be tricked or accidentally give consent. Consent is an informed, intentional decision. Anything else doesn't count.

But I do agree: the tech industry understands consent just fine, it's just fundamentally opposed to the idea.

> Consent is an informed, intentional decision. Anything else doesn't count.

From a legal perspective, consent is merely a database entry with t on it for that user_id.

There is a big difference between English language consent and tech company manufactured consent.

Yes, I'm talking about actual consent, not the legal fiction of it.

I would say this in a different way, which is that they have an understanding that data handling consent in any sort of way that’s fair to customers is not a legal requirement to operate a tech business in the US.

If you were starting a business and nobody requires you to do a specific action, what’s your incentive to do it? Especially when customers will come your way either way.

Considering the CEO of Automatic is a huge a-hole, I'm hardly surprised.