As it should be. It's none of our "right" to visit any particular site. The person who sets up the site gets to identify the terms of use - since they're the one footing the bill for it.
If you don't like it, that's your prerogative - you can go somewhere else. If enough people do that, the person who owns the site loses out. But I can't see why it's not entirely within a provider's rights to say "if you use our service, you must agree to X. Otherwise, Y."
I think a better use of resources than the clunky EU cookie law would be to say "sites can analyze what visitors do on their site - but only there." Then it's truly opt-in (by virtue of using the site), and sandboxed. There's no "following you home" - the site owner would only have access to what you do on their site.
Opting out by not participating is approaching impossible, and doesn't send a visible signal to site owners. There will never be "enough people", but that doesn't mean the issues are not important. If the minorities who notice problems (missing wheelchair ramps, lack of braille on signs, ambiguous color indicators, gross violations of privacy) are silenced and ostracized, we all suffer.
If you don't like it, that's your prerogative - you can go somewhere else. If enough people do that, the person who owns the site loses out. But I can't see why it's not entirely within a provider's rights to say "if you use our service, you must agree to X. Otherwise, Y."
I think a better use of resources than the clunky EU cookie law would be to say "sites can analyze what visitors do on their site - but only there." Then it's truly opt-in (by virtue of using the site), and sandboxed. There's no "following you home" - the site owner would only have access to what you do on their site.