this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
166 points (96.1% liked)

Privacy

32130 readers
1135 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This has to be against some kind of law right?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 51 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Saw this on Sunday. I think it fits here...

[–] Fijxu@programming.dev 5 points 1 month ago

I always do this when I can't see a page. I also do it when they pop out a big box with text in the middle of the reading and if they also pop out a big box begging me to accept the cookies.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

The website doesn't really care; they have hosting costs so if you're not paying with money or by accepting ads then to them you're worse than not visiting at all as you consume resources, so it's good if you leave?

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 16 points 1 month ago

So, it's win win. Good scenario.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

ublock origin has an annoyance list you have to manually enable, but it works wonders to get rid of those.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 41 points 1 month ago

Don’t worry, once they have your credit card number they’ll track you even more. At best you’ll get a £‎2.35 cheque from a class action lawsuit in seven years, assuming they ever even get caught.

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 39 points 1 month ago (2 children)

thank brexiters for that, it's illegal in eu

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Remind me why we left again

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 25 points 1 month ago

To reduce regulations and taxes on rich people, mainly.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago

no it's not, it's a loophole in the legislation that was actually first used and is still most popular in France?

[–] ZeDoTelhado@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What a fantastic website not to visit

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I just wanted to read one article, so i have to pay to reject cookies even though I'll probably never end up on that site again. What a fuckin joke!

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

It's the express, you're better off never reading a word they print

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

Archive.is is your friend

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Even if you pay, you'll still be tracked.

Yeah, they’ll still collect your data and happily sell it as soon as your subscription ends. Also, this subscription would likely only cover first-party tracking. It wouldn’t cover things like a Facebook Like button being embedded in the site, which allows Facebook to track you.

[–] Mojeek@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 month ago

The Express? There's definitely a not-reading-it option

[–] als@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] LiveLM@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Now that's the real PrivacyPlus™

And it's free.

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Never heard of consent-o-matic. I'm gonna have to check it out

[–] hellfire103@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 month ago

Moral of the story? Don't read the Express. To quote Dave Gorman, it's a crock of shit.

[–] dgriffith@aussie.zone 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Not really, it's just phrased differently to the usual signup pitch, they're putting in a middle ground between full "premium" subscribers (whatever that is) and public access with tracking and ad metrics.

Companies need revenue to operate. They get that revenue from advertising data and selling ad slots, or subscriptions. Whether they actually cease all tracking and ad metrics when you subscribe is something I'd doubt though, and that could be a case for the legal system if they didn't do what they claim.

Personally, this behaviour is the point where I would not consider the site to be valuable enough to bother with.

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wasn't it illegal to not let a user reject a cookie? In the EU at least

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yep, and not just that. The rejection has to be just as easy as accepting it

[–] JoeKrogan@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If the news is that important you'll find it elsewhere without this bs

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 10 points 1 month ago

You’re not missing much.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Haven't these cookie paywalls been ruled illegal?

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Only in the EU apparently. Although, I could've sworn cookie paywalls were breaking some law

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] csm10495@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

Have you heard of adblocking?

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

This has to be against some kind of law right?

Only in the EU.

Anyways I think that "pay or consent" model isn't that bad. You either pay with your data or your money. Seems fine to me though pay only would be better. Everyone is used to getting everything online for free. It has to change now imo. The internet isn't a bunch of hobby forum projects anymore. The price of running a popular website is big and idk if privacy-respecting ads can give enough profit at this point.

[–] Aradia@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You can show ads without tracking and keeping users their right to privacy, right? I think it's different selling user data than having some ads on your website.

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You can but, as I said, it's much less profitable.

[–] wrekone@lemmyf.uk 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Which brings us back to the real, underlying, problems with the prevalent model: greed and the concentration of wealth.

[–] zwekihoyy@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

which is inherent to, and the express goal of a capitalist economic system.

[–] Cris16228 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Some people will find a way to abuse everything for ultra profit. Sadly it will never change.

[–] Taalnazi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It is bad. Companies could just have some fucking standards.

The issue is profit-motivated companies existing in the first place.

Rather, they should be self-led, and motivated towards the best labour environment as according to their workers. That means their workers feeling accepted, heard and listened to, being able to not only live but also thrive. And all that, while still making the organisation more efficient.

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

That's true but absolutely impossible to achieve.

[–] zerozaku@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hey that's a lot better than companies who asks you to pay and still share your data for profits

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

No guarantee these guys won't

[–] superkret@feddit.org 4 points 1 month ago

They want you to pay for the cost of the website you're accessing.
Which is reasonable.

And you can choose whether you want to pay with money or with your data.

[–] zwekihoyy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I mean, if you don't want to participate in the advertisement based monetization model, which you shouldn't, then the alternative to it is a subscription model.

these sites aren't free. we have the right to block advertising content and trackers on our browsers but that doesn't mean we have the right to block advertising while retaining no payment access.

[–] kirk781@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 month ago

Err, this payment doesn't block ads. It only switches off personalised ads. So, the user is still seeing ads, just not targeted ones. So the site is getting both user's money plus ad money. And technically, I am not sure how privacy preserving this is because you will still need to create an account which technically leaves you vulnerable to tracking.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago

Yep. I wish more services asked for a nominal fee and just skipped the ads and data harvesting. They don't make much per user anyway, so just let us pay the few cents directly and skip the bullshit.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

Is this related to the new laws in Europe? I remember seeing something about Facebook introducing a paid tier

[–] Echo5@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Besides the point but are you able to get around it with internet archive?

[–] GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Gets around it perfectly

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Either pay for an vpn and clear your cache and cookies constantly or pay directly to the advertisers.

Freedom isn’t free, there’s a hefty fuckin fee.

If you don’t kick in your buck-o-5 who will?

load more comments
view more: next ›