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.
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?”
Not any factor lotion will protect your mental health from “the Sun” o_O
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!
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.
Why are you trying to read the Sun? Brain cancer is a terrible disease. Don’t do this to your family.
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
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.
How is this even legal?
Because Brits voted Brrrrexit?
We still have the UK implementation of GDPR. That didn’t go away when we left the EU.
We won’t have any changes to it that might have happened since brexit but we didn’t remove the law either.
Yeah I learned of this before, you are 100% correct. The EU GDPR is in place for any UK company doing business in the EU and the UK GDPR visa versa, but they differ on topics as immigration, national security and such as you might know anyhow. The rest is very similar.
This is a US website no?
you get ads whether pay or not. keep your money
How is that not extortion?
Because you aren’t compelled to use their site.
It’s the Sun. No one should use their site. They’re doing you a favour by showing you they’re assholes the second you land on their site.
True, but shouldn’t I be able to use it if I want to without having to choose between paying money or being spied on?
The only other option I can see would be ads – but I’m betting you’d just use an ad-blocker.
Well, the fact that when there are ads, there’s always like 20 of them is another issue… But yeah, I don’t even care about ads but as I see it I should have a right to privacy without having to pay for it.
You don’t have to pay for privacy. You still have that right.
What you don’t have is the right to use that particular website without either paying for it, or allowing cookies.
You aren’t a victim of anything here.
You are part of the problem here
How so?
Jokes on you, to remember your choice for no coockies they have to use a cookie.
Ublock origins -> select element -> remove
Or auto accept/refuse cookies with extension, then auto delete cookies for all but approved sites when closing browser.
I mean, I’m not opposed to all cookies. Ones that I actually need like that one are fine. Just dont track me kthxbye…
I still don’t care about Cookies + Cooking Auto-Delete is what I do. Do whatever the fuck is needed to get rid of the cookie banner and then delete all cookies when closing the tab.
I don’t even whitelist websites, I just don’t need cookies
Is a password manager, maybe with automatic login or at least autofill, part of your stack?
private session by default and using start page as your search engine with Anonymous View to search the pages saves the cookies but they are worthless one you leave the site
Okay, but that’s still a lot of effort, and loads more effort than 90% of users would be willing to go through. All so these fucks can (try to) sell my data to 19000 different ‘vendors’ and their ‘legitimate interests’. I swear this needs to be legally regulated somehow before we end up having to pay these people to not monitor our webcams while we read their shitty tabloids.
BTW I do use searXNG and Startpage
If you’re on Firefox, you can also have certain sites automatically open in containers. “Sure, put cookies on my machine if you want. You can see me only browsing your website ever.”
That’s the solution I’ve landed on for using Youtube, since Invidious and Piped always cack the bed for me. I’ve deleted my old Google account and started a new one with a fake email address, too.
Good strategy for dealing with them. Reminds me that on the Hacker News article about the Internet Archive hack, a couple of commenters reported on whether they found their email addresses in the leak. They called them their “unique-to-archive.org email addresses.”
The more we compartmentalize, the better off we are, I think.
Oh, thats neat. Didn’t know about that feature. Thanks :)
Containers are great.
What do you think - cookie autodelete sound a little more private? “If you can’t fingerprint my browser, this might as well be my first visit to this website“
Cookie autodelete would be great, though then you potentially have to deal with the cookie popup every time you visit. Not a terrible thing, but worth noting.
ETA: Yeah, you can zap it with uBO, but then you might have to do it again if it comes back.
“To change all cookie settings click_here” <-- this is the bit you want. It’s free to reject all the cookies yourself.
I don’t think I’ve ever had 63 tabs open on my browser. Well done.
Really? I regularly have well over 100, constant ♾️ Don’t get me wrong, I wish I didn’t.
Mad lad, hats off to you. If I have 6 or more open I start to feel uncomfortable.
