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
    2
    ·
    2 months 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
      1
      ·
      2 months 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…

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I have so many open my browser doesn’t give me a count anymore and just shows me a surprised face.

    • Twitches@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Really? I regularly have well over 100, constant ♾️ Don’t get me wrong, I wish I didn’t.

  • joe_archer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months 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.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Well, to be fair, “Why can’t websites just remember that I said no to cookies?”

        • Kayana@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months 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!

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

  • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I mean, do you expect news to be free?

    Either pay for it by selling your data or with money, or don’t use their website.

  • lordnikon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months 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
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months 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
        0
        ·
        2 months 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.”

        • Bob@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

      • ilikecoffee@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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?

        • null@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The only other option I can see would be ads – but I’m betting you’d just use an ad-blocker.

          • ilikecoffee@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • null@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.