And how is this helpful? Is this a solution? What if the app-in-question was a different one? Not using Instagram at that would be very helpful, indeed...
Of course it's a solution. The developer has a right to comply with the law in whichever way they see to best fit their needs as a business. If you don't like it then don't use the app, nobody is forcing you to and you don't have a right to dictate to others how to run their business.
It's done all the time. And a reason why e.g. in the US or EU sites, domains, accounts and whatnots will be blocked or frozen for CP, whereas that (type of) CP may be legal in the place where the distributor is based.
While that's an entire different scale as "didn't display cookie banner" the mechanisms are the same and in place. If the EU finds privacy infringement important enough the infringer will be warned than fined[1]. I'm no lawyer, but I would expect that when a company doesn't pay that fine, they'll ultimately be prohibited from doing any business in the EU. e.g. through blocks, frozen accounts and such.
"let me track you or you can't use this" ought to be well within the law. The idea that is isn't is pretty insane government overreach. The disclosure should be clear and obvious, but it should also be the right of two parties to enter into such an agreement without the interference of the federal government.
I don't understand. There are webpages/apps that track you and now you have to accept that they track you before using it. That has nothing to do with instagram - if I don't want to be tracked, I don't use the software. Right? Simple solution.
