Was trying to read a news story and… What fresh shitfuckery is this? Why do I now have to pay money to a company just for the privilege of not being spied upon and not getting your cookies that I don’t want or need? How is this even legal?
RE: “Why are you even reading that shitrag?” – I clicked on a link someone posted in another sublemmit, didn’t realise it was the Sun till after. I do not read the Sun on the regular, chill. My point stands regardless that this is extremely shitty and should probably not be allowed.
OP, The Sun is one of the trashiest rags on the face of this Earth. Your best option regardless of their ad practices was always to stay well away from them.
Oh I know, I clicked a link here on lemmy and was taken to that site. I never read it otherwise, but now Im definitely not reading it…
you can block websites if you want if you’re on voyager. It’ll filter out posts which link to whatever websites you list.
Radical approach, because I might miss the post with interesting comments, and people often provide alternative links or straight up embed summaries.
Oooh, good tip. Didn’t know about that feature.
I’m on Sync. I might have a look later.
I wouldn’t bother switching for a fewture like that. Just wanted to share incase you were on voyager.
Ooh you can share settings like this? Whoa…
One of the best Sync features. Long press on any setting to copy a link to your clipboard.
I use voyager and I love you for sharing this. fuck the s*n.
oh man that’s an incredible option. i was already super happy with the “share as image” option they have, but it seems like they just keep outdoing themselves
And they’re not even the worst in the UK.
I forget which one it was that decried the Brass Eye paedophile special as sick, while on the page directly opposite it was an article telling you how big 15 year old Charlotte Church’s tits were getting along with a photo.
Daily Mail?
Brass Eye was incredible for shining a light on media and political hysteria. Their episode on drugs was hilarious and tragic.
They have a reputation in the UK for a reason, I don’t even want to start thinking what the us version is like
I’m pretty sure this is illegal under GDPR. They’re just seeing how long they can get away with it for, before they have to apologise and get no punishment.
I’m seeing this kind of thing on an ever increasing number of sites in Germany. It’s especially galling on sites I already pay a subscription fee for! Isn’t that enough? Now I’m supposed to pay another monthly subscription to avoid tracking cookies?
I’ve already cancelled one news website due to this, letting them know why (they’re small enough that I know they read it, since it was part of a conversation). Fat lot of good it’ll do, but …
I wouldn’t call what they’re asking for a subscription – it’s ransom.
Indeed. There must be no downside to clicking no. Consent must be freely given.
Although I’d argue almost nobody complies with the spirit of the law. Popping up a consent form every time you visit unless you accidentally click accept and then never asking you again doesn’t feel like consent was truly given.
Well, to be fair, “Why can’t websites just remember that I said no to cookies?”
Cookies required for the website to work (like that one) are totally fine and, in fact, they don’t even have to ask you about them - if they’re not used for tracking. So no, asking each time is definitely avoidable.
Unfortunately, at least in Germany it’s legal. There was a special ruling recently.
(Link in German)
This appears to be a US specific website, where they could get away with the geoblocking technique to bypass gdpr
It’s The Sun. A British newspaper.
It for sure is The Sun, but if you look closely at the logo, you will see it actually says “The U.S. Sun”. So it’s an American offshoot of the British newspaper and the domain OP was accessing is likely hosted in the U.S.
I’m in the UK, the British version does this as well.
Sadly it is not, as you need to pay to access content by money or pay by viewing ads.
Facebook uses the same model.
If you don’t want the “premium content” by paying with way 1 or way 2, you can’t use the site.
This will end up being a final nail in the coffin for these sites, I wish.
The best part of this is you would need to give them your personal information to pay them, and you’d need to accept the necessary cookies for them to know you’ve paid when you access the website. 🤣🤣🤣
you’d need to accept the necessary cookies for them to know you’ve paid when you access the website
Cookies that are required for and only used for operational purposes (like knowing if the user is logged in) don’t require consent.
Yeah fair enough, I was just highlighting the irony.
Not any factor lotion will protect your mental health from “the Sun” o_O
No you don’t.
The site is trash so you leave.
I am really fucking sick and tired of every goddamn company thinking they’re entitled to colonize my property and hack it to serve them instead of me.
My computer is my property, you fascist fucks, not yours, and my actual property rights trump your Imaginary “Property” “rights” (i.e. temporary government-granted privileges) every single time and in every single circumstance!
I broadly agree with your sentiment, in particular computing equipment that I purchase and ongoing trends in tech (like smart TVs) that are abusive to consumers.
However, I find this argument not terribly persuasive in this particular case. The content of a website isn’t an extension of your property. It is not even public property. Visiting a site is voluntary. You clearly didn’t pay for accessing the site, nor was it subsidized through a social program. So exactly how should content (regardless of how trashy it is) be funded? Statements like “rights” (i.e. temporary government-granted privileges) suggest you are espousing libertarian views, but at the same time, you are not expressing willingness to pay for a service privately?
I dunno, it just comes across as demanding a handout. Meanwhile, not visiting websites that don’t meet your vision for how funding content should be done seems like a perfectly simple and reasonable approach to have for this problem.
The content of a website isn’t an extension of your property.
No, but it is my property which is to be used to store files that this company has put there, just so they can track me across the web to sell me more crappy shit I do not need.
So exactly how should content (regardless of how trashy it is) be funded?
With ads, but either be good and use ads that arent spyware, or let me choose to opt out of the tracky ones and use general ads instead.
Meanwhile, not visiting websites that don’t meet your vision for how funding content should be done seems like a perfectly simple and reasonable approach to have for this problem.
Yup, hence why I noped outta there as soon as I saw that popup cause fuuuck that…
Yeah exactly!
Oh no. It’s not like that. They don’t even ask you about cookies any more.
This is a payment so they don’t sell all your cookie data to their 1354 trusted data partners/advertising vultures.
you get ads whether pay or not. keep your money
I find it amusing that they “use cookies to give you the best possible experience”, but then ask you to pay to not have them.
The red flag there in the screenshot shows you the name of the publication you should avoid using or visiting.
Solution: don’t read that shitrag. It was always a waste of paper, now it is a waste of bandwidth as well.
Not the f’n point
But a fair point nonetheless.
Only thing the papers were good for was paper mache
deleted by creator
Not the f’n point my dude
This is happening because the site is shitty so don’t use the shitty site. Sounds pretty f’n on-point to me.
I agree with the sentiment about the shittyness of the site.
But this was about a new bullshit cookie bullshit.
If you can understand the persons problem here then maybe you need to do some work about that
A naive question of mine, but isn’t using a browser/extensions that silently/transparently blocks cookies (such as Brave, but not just it) enough to fearlessly click “Accept All Cookies”, since ultimately they would be pointless for the purpose of tracking (due to the browser’s own cookie blocking capabilities)?
Yeah it would. But as I said elsewhere, this is probably enough to be ‘too much effort’ for the majority of users, and definitely a lot more effort than it should be. I already know several people who habitually click accept all on cookie banners, and I know I have caught myself doing that a couple times too…
It asks to play DRM content but plays videos anyway.
Their devs must be so sick of their business dept.
I’d be surprised if it was just the business department…
When I was working on data protection issues, I asked a specialist lawyer more than two years ago how something like this could be reconciled with the GDPR. He couldn’t answer the question, but said that with the best will in the world he couldn’t imagine that this would be OK under data protection law. Nevertheless, this approach is now common practice for the vast majority of news sites in Europe and also in the EU, which has strict regulations regarding tracking, at least in theory. I still don’t know the legal details, but at least I know that there are no serious penalties whatsoever if there is no distortion of competition involved - and since none of the news companies would sue another in this matter, this has become common practice even in the EU.
Can confirm this.
