Why shouldn't you allowed to track people across your own services if users consent? If they don't consent, they are free to simply not use your services. Problem solved.
There is no actual need for this law. No rights are being infringed on. Just don't use the website.
Because that's how we like it, and that's the end of it. The people of the EU have said that these are the rules for doing business there, and saying "I should be able to murder people in my own house, if you don't want to be murdered, just don't come here, there's no need for anti-murdering laws" is rather irrelevant.
> saying "I should be able to murder people in my own house, if you don't want to be murdered, just don't come here, there's no need for anti-murdering laws"
Conversely, you can justify any authoritarian unjust law because "that's how we like it."
"Deporting brown people without due process? That's how we like it, who are you to complain? You're free to not work with the US, but we know you will!"
Obviously a nuanced and meaningful conversation goes much deeper than "that's how we like it." Why is it such an infringement on user rights to not be allowed to use a website if they don't follow the owner's terms of use? That is unaddressed.
This logic works just the same applied to Meta, without the requiring the expectation that Meta should be able to operate without following the law.
Why shouldn't Meta be forbidden to track people? It's the law. If they don't want to follow the applicable law in the jurisdiction they operate in they can cease their operations there.
There is no actual need for this law. No rights are being infringed on. Just don't use the website.