> anonymised" data is often extremely easy to de-anonymise

If it's location data, yes. If it's your IDE usage stats (plugins, file types, whatever), not really.

Maybe it includes a list of fonts installed on your system, your screen resolution, etc. You don’t need much to get a “fingerprint” that is anonymous but can be correlated with those collected by other tools’ telemetry.

In theory yes? But if state actors, the ones with the sophistication to literally build a signature based on your fonts using your IDE, and then infiltrate a second application to do... whatever... if they want you that bad, they're eventually just going to get you, even if they have to just send someone to your house with a rusty wrench to retrieve all your passwords. Those guys can get the job done much more cheaply anyway.

Nowhere was I talking about state actors. Most fingerprinting is done for ad targeting, as far as I know.

so we shouldn't worry about de-anonymisation because the government could kick your door down?

seems like a weak argument

Compared to most UI dark patterns and scummy tactics to get you to "consent" (actually tricking you into agreeing, because nobody can't be bothered to jump through like a bunch of legalese and dialogs), them just giving you that choice of straight up paying feels better.

Not really interested in their services, but at least that sort of payment would let me expect less trickery in the future.

> Critics of this consent model have called it "pay-or-okay", claiming that the monthly fee is disproportional and that users are not able to withdraw their consent to tracking as easily as it is given, which the GDPR requires. Massimiliano Gelmi, a data protection lawyer at NOYB, has stated that "The law is clear, withdrawing consent must be as easy as giving it in the first place. It is painfully obvious that paying €251,88 per year to withdraw consent is not as easy as clicking an 'Okay' button to accept the tracking."

Under this model, you'd just have to refuse service to everyone who doesn't pay (killing your platform) or let people partake in your platform with no revenue off of them (killing your platform). Neither seems reasonable from the perspective of that business? Are they just supposed to find other ways of monetizing their users or perish then?

Yes, declaring that to be illegitimate is the point. Just like we declare polluting rivers to be illegitimate despite it being good for business.