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.

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • ilikecoffee@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 month ago

      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…

  • joe_archer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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. 🤣🤣🤣

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    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!

    • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • ilikecoffee@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        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…

  • bitwolf@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    It asks to play DRM content but plays videos anyway.

    Their devs must be so sick of their business dept.

  • lordnikon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    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

    • ilikecoffee@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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

      • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.”

          • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            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.

  • DandomRude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.

  • irotsoma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    And, though I don’t know about this one in particular, just because you pay not to have personalized ads, doesn’t mean you’re paying not to have your data tracked and sold by this company or to not have tracking cookies added to your browser by them that other sites can use to target ads to you.

    It’s just that they won’t use the information they collect or buy or get from partners’ tracking cookies or advertising IDs already on your system to target the ads you see while on their site and logged in.