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.worldEnglish
    1904·
    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.

  • joe_archer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    66·
    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.

    • fancy_coffeetable@feddit.orgEnglish
      23·
      2 months ago

      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 …

    • KSP Atlas@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      This appears to be a US specific website, where they could get away with the geoblocking technique to bypass gdpr

        • Spraynard Kruger@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          It for sure is The Sun, but if you look closely at the logo, you will see it actually says “The U.S. Sun”. So it’s an American offshoot of the British newspaper and the domain OP was accessing is likely hosted in the U.S.

    • redfellow@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      Sadly it is not, as you need to pay to access content by money or pay by viewing ads.

      Facebook uses the same model.

      If you don’t want the “premium content” by paying with way 1 or way 2, you can’t use the site.

      This will end up being a final nail in the coffin for these sites, I wish.

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.worldEnglish
    33·
    2 months 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. 🤣🤣🤣

    • dan@upvote.auEnglish
      8·
      2 months ago

      you’d need to accept the necessary cookies for them to know you’ve paid when you access the website

      Cookies that are required for and only used for operational purposes (like knowing if the user is logged in) don’t require consent.

  • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
    231·
    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!

    • SkyNTP@lemmy.mlEnglish
      104·
      2 months 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.worldOPEnglish
        32·
        2 months 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…

  • blind3rdeye@lemm.eeEnglish
    15·
    2 months ago

    I find it amusing that they “use cookies to give you the best possible experience”, but then ask you to pay to not have them.

  • Gikiski@fedia.io
    141·
    2 months ago

    The red flag there in the screenshot shows you the name of the publication you should avoid using or visiting.

  • Rookeh@startrek.websiteEnglish
    132·
    2 months ago

    Solution: don’t read that shitrag. It was always a waste of paper, now it is a waste of bandwidth as well.

  • Daemon Silverstein@thelemmy.clubEnglish
    10·
    2 months ago

    A naive question of mine, but isn’t using a browser/extensions that silently/transparently blocks cookies (such as Brave, but not just it) enough to fearlessly click “Accept All Cookies”, since ultimately they would be pointless for the purpose of tracking (due to the browser’s own cookie blocking capabilities)?

    • ilikecoffee@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      Yeah it would. But as I said elsewhere, this is probably enough to be ‘too much effort’ for the majority of users, and definitely a lot more effort than it should be. I already know several people who habitually click accept all on cookie banners, and I know I have caught myself doing that a couple times too…

      • Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        33·
        2 months ago

        This is happening because the site is shitty so don’t use the shitty site. Sounds pretty f’n on-point to me.

        • Jarix@lemmy.worldEnglish
          51·
          2 months ago

          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

  • bitwolf@lemmy.oneEnglish
    9·
    2 months ago

    It asks to play DRM content but plays videos anyway.

    Their devs must be so sick of their business dept.

    • nogooduser@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • kindenough@kbin.earth
        1·
        2 months ago

        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.