A simple disclosure, akin to the GDPR disclosure, doesn't seem unreasonable. Meatspace psychological tests would require informed consent and IRB approval. I agree that a more nuanced definition of what requires disclosure would be preferable (e.g. link tracking and testing button colors seems benign, messing with peoples moods with different content algorithms is not).
Assume consent...for what, exactly? To note which links on their site you clicked, and which you ignored - OK, that may be reasonable. To share/sell that information to a multitude of other businesses, most of which you've never heard of? I'm not so sure. To follow your activity across the rest of the internet for the following month, and sell access to that data? No thanks.
When you see a popup about cookies on a site, what do you do? Read the agreement, close the site, or just click "Allow"? Absolute majority of people simply click "Allow".
But even for the people who want to read the agreement, it would be much better if this was implemented as a browser feature, giving users control and consistency, instead of different popups on each site.
If I get a popup just saying that a site uses cookies, I may well allow it (knowing that my browser will clear the cookies when I close my incognito session, perhaps).
If I get a popup listing various kinds of data collection that the site wants to do, and lists of "trusted partners" it will be shared with, etc., I generally refuse everything except "essential". If the site's idea of what is "essential" sounds excessive compared to the use I expect to make of it (just how much tracking is reasonably required in order to read an article?), I simply won't use it.
And if it makes the process of refusing consent particularly opaque or cumbersome (in violation of GDPR requirements), I certainly won't trust or use the site at all (I'm looking at you, Oath...)
