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
    1
    ·
    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.

  • joe_archer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month 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
        ·
        1 month 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
          ·
          1 month 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.

      • ilikecoffee@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month 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
          ·
          1 month 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
            ·
            1 month 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
              ·
              1 month 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.

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

        • Bob@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month 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
            ·
            1 month 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.