the user can simply choose not to read the article, so there's an option where they don't get fucked.
We are rapidly nearing a point where you can't read online news from any major (ergo "widely considered somewhat credible") source without one of those schemes. So I'd argue that the alternative is to just not get access to online news, and that may be considered too much pressure to still consider consent as voluntary.
Sadly, newspapers are not considered "platforms". A platform is a site that publishes user generated content, so lemmy or facebook. And not all platforms are large platforms too.
So while this is a good first step, it doesn't cover all online services.
It's not a grey area, it's clearly illegal (consent has to be given voluntarily. If you can't use the site without paying, that's not voluntary). Agencies so far just decided to look the other way and play dumb. There are lawsuits ongoing.
German news outlets all do it. The data protection agencies have sadly so far ruled it's ok (there are still ongoing lawsuits afaik).
"I didn't ask how big the room was, I said I cast fireball!"
Wear earplugs at loud concerts and parties and at work if you have a noisy job.
People will make fun about you, but believe me, permanent tinnitus really sucks.
People should know basic concepts about tools without which they can't do any part of their job.
Your colleague will learn this terminology at some point. I'm sure her job isn't litterally juggling these three terms all day every day, otherwise I'd expect her to already have come in with that knowledge too.
At least one German outlet has been shown to still track you after paying. Just a bit less. So they use a rubber with a few holes poked in.