This has to be against some kind of law right?
Saw this on Sunday. I think it fits here…
The website doesn’t really care; they have hosting costs so if you’re not paying with money or by accepting ads then to them you’re worse than not visiting at all as you consume resources, so it’s good if you leave?
So, it’s win win. Good scenario.
but the offer has consumed resurces
Sure, but people have memory and if you block people who aren’t even going to contribute to the running costs of the site via the channels they provide, never mind profit, then from the site owners perspective it’s pretty great if you recognise it as a site you don’t want to visit as you likely won’t come back
I always do this when I can’t see a page. I also do it when they pop out a big box with text in the middle of the reading and if they also pop out a big box begging me to accept the cookies.
ublock origin has an annoyance list you have to manually enable, but it works wonders to get rid of those.
thank brexiters for that, it’s illegal in eu
Remind me why we left again
To reduce regulations and taxes on rich people, mainly.
Racism
When are you coming back?
Why is bro replying to a 2 week old comment💀
Cuz I can Also I sort by new comments, I dunno who put it back to the top
no it’s not, it’s a loophole in the legislation that was actually first used and is still most popular in France?
Don’t worry, once they have your credit card number they’ll track you even more. At best you’ll get a £2.35 cheque from a class action lawsuit in seven years, assuming they ever even get caught.
What a fantastic website not to visit
I just wanted to read one article, so i have to pay to reject cookies even though I’ll probably never end up on that site again. What a fuckin joke!
It’s the express, you’re better off never reading a word they print
Archive.is is your friend
Even if you pay, you’ll still be tracked.
Yeah, they’ll still collect your data and happily sell it as soon as your subscription ends. Also, this subscription would likely only cover first-party tracking. It wouldn’t cover things like a Facebook Like button being embedded in the site, which allows Facebook to track you.
The Express? There’s definitely a not-reading-it option
Moral of the story? Don’t read the Express. To quote Dave Gorman, it’s a crock of shit.
To avoid these things I use uBlock Origin and Consent-O-Matic
Now that’s the real PrivacyPlus™
And it’s free.
Never heard of consent-o-matic. I’m gonna have to check it out
Not really, it’s just phrased differently to the usual signup pitch, they’re putting in a middle ground between full “premium” subscribers (whatever that is) and public access with tracking and ad metrics.
Companies need revenue to operate. They get that revenue from advertising data and selling ad slots, or subscriptions. Whether they actually cease all tracking and ad metrics when you subscribe is something I’d doubt though, and that could be a case for the legal system if they didn’t do what they claim.
Personally, this behaviour is the point where I would not consider the site to be valuable enough to bother with.
Wasn’t it illegal to not let a user reject a cookie? In the EU at least
Yep, and not just that. The rejection has to be just as easy as accepting it
If the news is that important you’ll find it elsewhere without this bs
This has to be against some kind of law right?
Only in the EU.
Anyways I think that “pay or consent” model isn’t that bad. You either pay with your data or your money. Seems fine to me though pay only would be better. Everyone is used to getting everything online for free. It has to change now imo. The internet isn’t a bunch of hobby forum projects anymore. The price of running a popular website is big and idk if privacy-respecting ads can give enough profit at this point.
You can show ads without tracking and keeping users their right to privacy, right? I think it’s different selling user data than having some ads on your website.
You can but, as I said, it’s much less profitable.
Which brings us back to the real, underlying, problems with the prevalent model: greed and the concentration of wealth.
which is inherent to, and the express goal of a capitalist economic system.
What about this https://lemmy.world/post/20593105
Some people will find a way to abuse everything for ultra profit. Sadly it will never change.
It is bad. Companies could just have some fucking standards.
The issue is profit-motivated companies existing in the first place.
Rather, they should be self-led, and motivated towards the best labour environment as according to their workers. That means their workers feeling accepted, heard and listened to, being able to not only live but also thrive. And all that, while still making the organisation more efficient.
That’s true but absolutely impossible to achieve.
You’re not missing much.
Haven’t these cookie paywalls been ruled illegal?
Only in the EU apparently. Although, I could’ve sworn cookie paywalls were breaking some law
website exists for people born in the eu -> it has to comply with the gdpr
I mean, if you don’t want to participate in the advertisement based monetization model, which you shouldn’t, then the alternative to it is a subscription model.
these sites aren’t free. we have the right to block advertising content and trackers on our browsers but that doesn’t mean we have the right to block advertising while retaining no payment access.
Err, this payment doesn’t block ads. It only switches off personalised ads. So, the user is still seeing ads, just not targeted ones. So the site is getting both user’s money plus ad money. And technically, I am not sure how privacy preserving this is because you will still need to create an account which technically leaves you vulnerable to tracking.
Yep. I wish more services asked for a nominal fee and just skipped the ads and data harvesting. They don’t make much per user anyway, so just let us pay the few cents directly and skip the bullshit.
Have you heard of adblocking?
