Sure, I know why everyone has to show them legally. But if noone reads them really, and mindlessly clicks through, then it serves 0% of the intended purpose. Protection measure what does not do anything really useful (just avoiding regulatory fine) is worse as it is just a big waste and false sense of being informed?
Another working idea from me would be that if someone really hates cookies, and somehow manages to live over consequences. then these should be just disabled in the browser side, either globally or per site. Server-side cookie warning solution is prime sample of wasteful privacy theater, nothing more.
I think this is one of the greatest examples of "normalization of deviance" of all time.
When the cookie warning pop-in was introduced I'm sure that most people who care about web usability and accessibility were strongly opposed. They were silenced, however, because it is a regulatory requirement, they are going to put us out of business, etc.
A few years after the cookie warnings became universal, many web sites started getting pop-in(s) to tell people to sign up, sign in, pay money, see scam ads, whatever.
Had it not been for the eurocrats paving the way there might have been some resistance to the pop-ins. But the needs of users were ignored, normalizing deviance, so that there was no resistance against the second wave.
Of course there is no way to speak back to eurocrats, even if you are in Europe -- but they are so mad that they don't have a Google or a Facebook that they'll ensure that they never get one.
If you have another idea of how to get that informed consent before storing a cookie, I'm sure people would love to explore other ideas.