Mildly Infuriating

• Just set up your browser to delete cookies on exit. If you want, just have it delete them from specifically that site. The entire debate over whether-or-not a site sets a cookie seems to me to be pretty pointless. If a site can set cookies, then some bad actor will. The dialogs that sites put up talking about it are pointless. No solution other than having your browser not retain them regardless of what a site wants to do is going to be a reliable solution. Not policies, not laws.

  I have my browser delete all cookies on exit. I have a very short whitelist of sites that I permit to keep cookies and track me. Every one of those is one that I need to log in to use anyway -- so I could be tracked with or without a cookie -- and the only thing the cookie does is buys me not needing to log in every time, doesn't have privacy implications.

• Paying doesn't buy you anything unless they offer a no-log, no-data-mining policy. If you log in to use the site, then they can track you anyway via the credentials you use.

• They're not imposing it on you. They're offering you a service that costs them money. They give you news, you give them money or data. If you don't want to do that deal, there's a whole Internet out there. Don't go to that particular site. There are lots of websites out there, many of which offer the same deal. Getting upset that somewhere on the Internet, someone is offering a deal that you don't want seems pointless.

  If you want to have some kind of tax-funded news site, go advocate for that. Yelling at them isn't going to get you there.

  If you want to just view news done by volunteers, something like WikiNews, then go visit those sites instead. Maybe contribute work as well. I don't think that volunteer news is going to realistically compete with commercial news, but hey, there was also a point when people thought the same thing about volunteer-run encyclopedias, so maybe it'll get there.

I'll also add that I'm going to be generous to the EU and assume that the goal of their "cookie warning" law, which is why many European websites show these, was to raise awareness of cookies and privacy implications by having warnings plastered all over, so that it starts people thinking about privacy. Because if the goal was actually to let people avoid cookies, then it is costly, disruptive and wildly ineffectual compared to just setting a setting in the browser, makes actually having the browser delete cookies more-annoying, and duplicates a browser-side standard, P3P, that already accomplished something similar, and was just all around a really bad law.

What new level of hell is this?

It looks like the big buttons are "accept all" or "pay for no ads", but the cookiescan still be tuned with the link under the "accept all"?

It's legal because the Sun is a private company and they have the right to charge you to not datamine you. It's not a public service and they're not the only source of news out there, so you have a choice: if you don't like it, get your news elsewhere.

What's the problem exactly?

bypass paywalls clean?

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.

Bild is doing this shit too.

Visiting the Murdoch-owned Sun was your first mistake. Everything they do to you after that is your own fault.,

Might as well hand your credit card to the MyPillow Guy next and complain about how much money just got charged to your account from the nearest strip club.