This has to be against some kind of law right?
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.
Saw this on Sunday. I think it fits here…
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?
So, it’s win win. Good scenario.
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.
thank brexiters for that, it’s illegal in eu
Remind me why we left again
To reduce regulations and taxes on rich people, mainly.
When are you coming back?
Why is bro replying to a 2 week old comment💀
Cuz I can Also I sort by new comments, I dunno who put it back to the top
Racism
Haven’t these cookie paywalls been ruled illegal?
Only in the EU apparently. Although, I could’ve sworn cookie paywalls were breaking some law
The Express? There’s definitely a not-reading-it option
What a fantastic website not to visit
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!
It’s the express, you’re better off never reading a word they print
Archive.is is your friend
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.
Wasn’t it illegal to not let a user reject a cookie? In the EU at least
Yep, and not just that. The rejection has to be just as easy as accepting it
Hey that’s a lot better than companies who asks you to pay and still share your data for profits
No guarantee these guys won’t
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
Which brings us back to the real, underlying, problems with the prevalent model: greed and the concentration of wealth.
which is inherent to, and the express goal of a capitalist economic system.
