> So everyone showing youtube videos would be affected unless users also start agreeing to IP exposure
Yes, and that's a good thing! A web page should only communicate with the server i've reached, there should be zero third-party involved unless i explicitly consent.
That for example <img> tag can use an arbitrary URL is explained by the fact that back in the day storage/bandwidth was expensive. The same is true for video to this day, but i guess it's good that heavy-to-load content is click-to-play.
Are you sure about the „explicitly“ part? I think it in certain cases, implicit consent should be enough, e.g. when a payment processor is contacted from a website. Even if you were running your own payment gateway, the user of your shop should be aware that the website will have to share information with their bank or credit card company. I think sharing data with third parties should not be easier than offline, but also not harder. Or do you sign a consent form each time you swipe your CC?
You are correct. However me simply visiting a homepage (service) does not require communicating my data to third parties, and doing so is not in the legitimate interest of any of the first parties involved. In this case it would fall under the obligation of explicit content.
The GDPR does not require consent for everything. It allows processing data that’s required to provide the desired functionality and payment processors would be covered (IANAL, to take with a grain of salt) You’d still need to mention that in the pages privacy policy, but other than that you should be fine, as long as you have the proper paperwork in place (DPA,…) and the payment processor is themselves GDPR compliant.
I find that hard to understand.
What server have you reached? Many sites are designed to be hosted by many servers at the same time.
Sites hosted on Amazon are moved around depending on load and your location.
Often you'll get part of the site from server X other bits from server Y.. images and css from an asset server and api data from one of many app servers.
You are correct. I just don't think that's a reasonable state of affairs. If that was part of a p2p model (eg. torrent/IPFS) it could be considered a reasonable tradeoff to allow for more eco-friendly (shorter routes, no need for high-powered servers) retrieval scheme.
Hyperlinks are the foundation of the web. However, when we started loading resources (eg. images) from third parties due to high bandwidth/disk cost, we opened a Pandora's box which i believe does more harm than good.
Yes, and that's a good thing! A web page should only communicate with the server i've reached, there should be zero third-party involved unless i explicitly consent.
That for example <img> tag can use an arbitrary URL is explained by the fact that back in the day storage/bandwidth was expensive. The same is true for video to this day, but i guess it's good that heavy-to-load content is click-to-play.