• Re: Paying to avoid cookeies?

    From Dimensional Traveler@21:1/5 to JAB on Wed Aug 14 08:24:20 2024
    On 8/14/2024 2:22 AM, JAB wrote:
    Well at least it's computer related, so I read something that the online version of The Daily Express newspaper have introduced a model that
    allows you either to read it for free but then you must accept being
    tracked with cookies or pay a subscription of £2 per-month to avoid
    them. There have been some comments about whether that's allowed under
    GDPR (the UK is still signed up although I'm surprised our last
    government didn't scrap it as party of EU meddling*) and why on earth
    would any pay to read that awful rag**?

    Putting those aside my first thought was that's ridiculous but my second thought was why is it if you're getting a service for free then is it
    really that unreasonable to make you pay for it indirectly in the same
    way you can pay not to see ad's. So yeh why not although maybe it's a
    sign of things to come?

    This not new. This kind of thinking has been around for about three
    seconds less than the internet has existed. "If you are not paying for
    it, you are not the customer. You are the product being sold to the customers."

    --
    I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
    dirty old man.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Xocyll@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 14 12:41:32 2024
    JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

    Well at least it's computer related, so I read something that the online >version of The Daily Express newspaper have introduced a model that
    allows you either to read it for free but then you must accept being
    tracked with cookies or pay a subscription of ú2 per-month to avoid
    them. There have been some comments about whether that's allowed under
    GDPR (the UK is still signed up although I'm surprised our last
    government didn't scrap it as party of EU meddling*) and why on earth
    would any pay to read that awful rag**?

    Just use a cookie manager that auto-deletes.

    I have for years had my browsers set to delete cookies and history upon closing, and in recent years used cookie monster or other cookie deleter
    to auto delete cookies moments after they are set.

    Incidentally many online newspapers are perfectly readable without
    javascript, and javascript is how they do all their controls to limit
    content access to subscribers, etc.
    As well as those unwelcome "xxxx no longer supports internet explorer"
    type notices, which is doubly annoying since I have never used IE. turn
    off javascript and that dumbshittery goes away entirely.

    Putting those aside my first thought was that's ridiculous but my second >thought was why is it if you're getting a service for free then is it
    really that unreasonable to make you pay for it indirectly in the same
    way you can pay not to see ad's. So yeh why not although maybe it's a
    sign of things to come?

    I use ad blockers to not see ads.
    And adblock adjacent programs to remove other inconveniences from online
    papers (stupid graphics, interstitial ads that aren't outside ads, but
    ads for their own content, sports section that I have no interest in,
    etc.

    *The did try and introduce the British Standard Mark to replace CE
    marking as that was a nasty EU thing so we should have our own. After a
    long time they quietly shelved the idea after businesses kept pointing
    out that only introduces more red tape, and hence expense, for any
    company that sells anything abroad. But, but, but why wouldn't they
    accept it as we're British which is a mindset that quite a few of our
    last government actually held as they didn't seem to realise that we are
    no longer in the 1800's.

    Wait the British gov't has realized it's not the 1800s? So what, the
    1900s now?

    **Not sure how well that translate outside of the UK but it refers to a >newspaper that you consider crap.

    "Rag" is international for crap paper.

    Xocyll

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rin Stowleigh@21:1/5 to spallshurgenson@gmail.com on Thu Aug 15 08:00:41 2024
    On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 17:12:58 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

    And if I can't visit your site with an adblocker, well, there are
    billions of other websites I can frequent instead.

    Don't count on that decision being made on a per-website basis.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/17wu2gz/google_confirms_they_will_disable_ublock_origin/

    Google isn't really a tech company, they're an advertising company
    that just happens to leverage technology as part of their primary
    business strategy.

    True technology companies like Microsoft that earn most of their
    revenue from software and cloud services are more trustworthy.

    I've said for decades free and open source ain't free. It just takes
    longer for it to rear its ugly head.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Xocyll@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 15 08:36:40 2024
    Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
    say:

    On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 12:41:32 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:

    JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn >>spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

    Well at least it's computer related, so I read something that the online >>>version of The Daily Express newspaper have introduced a model that >>>allows you either to read it for free but then you must accept being >>>tracked with cookies or pay a subscription of ú2 per-month to avoid
    them. There have been some comments about whether that's allowed under >>>GDPR (the UK is still signed up although I'm surprised our last >>>government didn't scrap it as party of EU meddling*) and why on earth >>>would any pay to read that awful rag**?

    Just use a cookie manager that auto-deletes.

    I have for years had my browsers set to delete cookies and history upon >>closing, and in recent years used cookie monster or other cookie deleter
    to auto delete cookies moments after they are set.


    Agree, although a cookie manager that auto-deletes and has a way
    white-list certain sites is better. Some sites I frequent too often
    that having to re-enter commonly used information is too much a pain
    ;-)

    Cookie auto-delete on Firefox does that, you can white list, manually
    delete

    I use ad blockers to not see ads.
    And adblock adjacent programs to remove other inconveniences from online >>papers (stupid graphics, interstitial ads that aren't outside ads, but
    ads for their own content, sports section that I have no interest in,
    etc.

    I absolutely won't read a website that won't display correctly unless
    I have to turn off my adblocker.

    Ditto.

    It's not just that I despise advertising (or rather, marketing),
    although that's certainly an issue. I'm equally concerned about the
    tracking. But advertising has also too often been a vector for malware
    that it's simply not SAFE to surf the web without an adblocker.

    Indeed, too many bad actors out there, which is why I have a couple of browsers, one of which spends 99.9% of it's time with cookies and
    javascript turned off.
    When I hit a site/link that won't display, I just copy the link and
    paste it into the other browser.

    I'm also enough of an old-school idealist who remembers when
    advertising was persona non grata on the Internet, and while I >/intellectually/ understand the argument that 'content creators gotta
    get paid', adverts still seem a violation of everything the Internet
    was supposed to be about, and I reject it at an almost instinctual
    level.

    Fortunately, ad-blocking tools like UBlock Origin make the web usable
    again, to the point I almost never see adverts anymore. For the few
    content creators I really like, I'll donate to the patreon. But I've
    no qualms about freeloading off big corporate websites. Fuck 'em.
    Despite my best efforts, I'm sure they're still harvesting and selling
    my data anyway, so I've little doubt they're still coming out ahead if
    I visit one of their websites.

    On Palemoon I use both UBlock Origins and Adblock latitude (that's the
    one that lets you block elements of the webpage itself,) this is the
    browser that has cookie and javascript disabled almost all the time.

    Firefox also has UBlock Origins, but there is no updated version of ABL
    for it, which sucks, and why I mostly still use Palemoon unless I
    absolutely need to switch.

    And if I can't visit your site with an adblocker, well, there are
    billions of other websites I can frequent instead.

    Exactly, there is no really unique content on the net, at least none
    that I want to see.

    The worst sites that I've found require you to have javascript on so
    they can scan your system "for your security."

    Since javascript is the vector so much malware uses, that's so
    incredibly stupid.

    Xocyll

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)