1000004515

Not sure how long this has been a thing but I was surprised to see that you cannot view the content without either agreeing to all or paying to reject.

  • CatZoomies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Get yourself the Consent-o-Matic browser extension and watch these “we and our 8000 partners (hungrily) value your privacy” banners disappear.

    If you stumble upon a web site that Consent-o-Matic does not handle, you can simply click the extension, click “Submit for Review”, and the devs will shortly add support for that site.

    • Swarfega@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      uBlock Origin has two cookie filters that are disabled by default. I enabled that and ditched the consent-o-matic extension

    • moon@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      But does that auto accept cookies like many of these other anti cookie banner extensions?

      • CatZoomies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        You can customize how the extension handles cookie banners. See an example of current settings on most updated extension at time of this comment:

      • CatZoomies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Oof! I definitely can raise an Enhancement request in their GitHub to see if they can take on adding that functionality.

        If anyone can get me the exact link of whatever OP experienced, I can log it there.

        • riccardo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          if you need a consent-or-pay example, just open La Repubblica’s homepage. You will be prompted with the “accept all cookies or pay” prompt as soon as you open the site. Pretty standard practice for most Italian online newspapers, sadly

          • 𝕸𝖔𝖘𝖘@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Even UBO doesn’t work here. Zapping the element, just pops it back up. Crazy

            E: disabling js does seem to allow access to the site and articles, though you can’t interact with anything (comments and such).

  • peto (he/him)@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Just don’t read The Mirror. Generally not worth the effort of moving your eyes from one word to the next.

  • ChonkaLoo@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Daily mail does it as well. Cancer. But not hard to circumvent with Firefox and some extensions.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      They can always go shittier. Nothing will stop them until the entire human population is strapped into a matrix style ad network, 24/7… paid for by you, renting your neurons as compute for AI to generate more ads and supporting analytics for yourself… until your profitability quotient falls below average and they liquify your corpse to feed a more profitable gen of the attention crop.

  • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Lmao even if you pay, you still see ads, they just won’t track you. What an insane monetization scheme

    • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Actually they still track you, they just don’t share the information with advertisers. This is hte “pay or ok” model of blackmailing users to accept cookies and tracking. More or less what Facebook did last year, but Facebook charged a price tag that was higher than what Netflix costs! In the EU, this is not what was intended, and is currently being redefined

      https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2024/edpb-consent-or-pay-models-should-offer-real-choice_en

      • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Absolutely wild that they’re still allowed to call this “consent”

        If we imagine the idea of sexual consent being given in the same circumstances, it sounds a lot like a fucking crime.

        “Either you consent to having sex with me right now or you pay me a subscription fee in order to not consent”

        • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I like this analogy; it’s provocative and it made me think about the issue for longer than I would have otherwise.

          However, after some thought, I don’t think it aligns perfectly since the user can simply choose not to read the article, so there’s an option where they don’t get fucked.

          In the same vein, I think we could make a better analogy to sexting. You meet someone, seem to hit it off, and when the texts and pictures get a little spicy, they hit you with a, “you can pay me now and I will keep all of this in my private spank-bank, otherwise I’m going to share our entire relationship with a group chat I’m in with 1200+ people”

          I think this is a bit stronger because it hits on a few notes where the hook-up analogy falls short: sharing of sensitive information, extortion in exchange for gratification, and the potential for an ongoing relationship.

          Idk, what do you think?

          • Don_alForno@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            Deutsch
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

          • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            I see where you’re coming from, but my understanding is that the tracking cookies are already on your machine when the banner is presented, so they’ve already put in the proverbial tip.

      • Don_alForno@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        Deutsch
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

    • suction@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      “But if we don’t track you, we lose all the money we’d have made selling your data to Oxford Analytics so they can help Putin convince your uncle to vote for far-right candidates?!?”

  • xia@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    How can you pay to block cookies if they would need a cookie to remember that you paid?

  • SleepyWheel@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    The Mirror website is cancer. I use NoScript and it won’t load without allowing about 50 fuckkng scripts. MSN too. I avoid both but occasionally click on a link from elsewhere

    • BMP5k@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      They are all unchecked by default but you can’t save and exit, it just loops back to the subscribe screen.