I disagree. These things are so annoying most people just use a browser plugin that removes them entirely. I don't need a warning label on every website and I don't trust pushing a button on a site does anything except send more data.
You implicitly consent for some basic things - if you order a widget then you don't need to sign a disclaimer saying they can use your address for posting it to you.
You need explicit consent to go outside of that, just like regular social interactions. I don't ask permission to remember your name and address if you've asked me to pick you up, I should ask permission before signing you up for a mailing list using that info.
The popups are because they're trying to step hugely outside of normal interactions.
Most implementations either load the tracking scripts after you click the button or hold back certain actions like cookies and network requests until you consent. Enforcement isn't as strict as it could be, but good enough that it mostly works
We're not talking about something that will take your foot off or something dangerous with safeties. But if you want gruesome analogies this is more like hiding razorblades underneath a safety seal warning about the package having sharp edges.
On my personal homepage I also use anonymous, privacy-preserving, GDPR-compliant analytics that doesn't require prompts. Other websites made a choice.
As the English version of that page says, it's been superceded by GPC which has more widespread industry support and is trying to get legal adoption though I'm seeing conflicting statements about whether it has any legal meaning at the moment, especially outside the US - the described effects in the EU seem redundant given what the GDPR and ePrivacy directive establish as the default behavior: https://privacycg.github.io/gpc-spec/explainer
This is different from the old "cookie banners" that were just informing you and leaving you no option but to dismiss the "warning". The GDPR and ePrivacy directive require companies to justify their use of your data and the only justification mechanism applicable for most of the data they want to collect is consent which must by definition be voluntary - the limitations of which are defined fairly explicitly in those laws.
Some sites try to work around this because they need ads for monetization by offering a paid subscription or requiring you to accept (behavioral) ads - but they've also been dinged for trying to bundle all the stuff not related to showing you ads with the "accept ads" option (or not letting you buy a subscription without first having to agree to share all your data like before).
I'm always surprised how many people in technical spaces like HN seem to misunderstand the legal situation and why these "warnings" look the way they do and blame the laws rather than the companies desperately trying to trick users into giving up on their data in ways that barely pass at an attempt to comply with the laws they're spending so much energy on deliberately violating. But it shouldn't be surprising - these companies put a lot of energy into making the process unpleasant for users (often in ways that are blatantly violating the laws) while framing themselves as the victims.