6 ms·

So says The Guardian, while showing me an illegal “Reject and Subscribe” tracking banner. Mixed messages.

by thih9 10d ago

deleted 10d ago
[deleted]
bluebarbet 10d ago
Doubtful that it's illegal, they have lawyers. Hard to say it's unethical either given that there is a clear option to pay instead of be tracked (which is in any case trivially defeated by an ad-blocker). For centuries until yesterday people paid for journalism like they paid for any other service.
- thih9 9d ago
  Under GDPR it is illegal. > Data subjects must be allowed to withdraw this consent at any time, and the process of doing so must not be harder than it was to opt in. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula... There is also FB specific: > In November 2023, Meta introduced a binary ‘Consent or Pay' advertising model. (…) > The Commission found that this model is not compliant with the DMA, as it did not give users the required specific choice to opt for a service that uses less of their personal data but is otherwise equivalent to the ‘personalised ads' service. Source: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1085 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...
  - bluebarbet 9d ago
    Echoes of America's gay wedding cake case. In the US this would presumably be struck down as "compelled speech", and rightly so IMO. People refuse to pay for journalism and now publishers are prevented from allowing them to consent to pay with their personal data. They can't win, and yet we need journalism. The solution to this whole thing has been obvious since the start: Put the power where it belongs, with the user agent (browser), by making the Do Not Track signal legally enforceable. I'm very pro-Brussels but they've made an absolute hash of this whole thing. Cookie banners are ruining the web, which is the only open app ecosystem we have.
    - thih9 9d ago
      You praise both “Do Not Track being legally enforceable” and “consent to pay with personal data”. Note that they are mutually exclusive.
      - bluebarbet 9d ago
        First, I'm not "praising" anything other than choice on the part of publishers and users. If DNT is set to 1 then a publisher should be free to withhold their content. If everybody sets it to 1 then they might well choose to make some compromises. Or not. I don't care. Just make the banners go away.
        thih9 9d ago
        > I don't care. Just make the banners go away. It’s easy, let them track you and don’t clear cookies. Be clear about your consent to tracking; then you don’t see cookie banners. Looks like there is even an extension for that: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/i-dont-care-about-cookies/fihnjjcciajhdojfnbdddfaoknhalnja https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/i-dont-care-about-c...
        bluebarbet 9d ago
        That's exactly what I do. Or rather I just mash whatever is the nearest button to smite the banner. "Refuse", "Accept", who cares? I'm blocking user-side anyway, as the web was designed for. This whole situation is completely dumb and unnecessary and makes me furious. The EU Commission should have known better. PS: Using a Chromium-based browser would be like begging to surrender what's left of the software freedom that I just described.
        thih9 9d ago
        Sounds like you’re not accepting the cookie banners in a meaningful way. Accept all cookies and never clear them - then you see no cookie banners.

So says The Guardian, while showing me an illegal “Reject and Subscribe” tracking banner. Mixed messages.

by thih9 10d ago

So says The Guardian, while showing me an illegal “Reject and Subscribe” tracking banner. Mixed messages.

deleted 10d ago

[deleted]

bluebarbet 10d ago

Doubtful that it's illegal, they have lawyers. Hard to say it's unethical either given that there is a clear option to pay instead of be tracked (which is in any case trivially defeated by an ad-blocker). For centuries until yesterday people paid for journalism like they paid for any other service.

thih9 9d ago
Under GDPR it is illegal. > Data subjects must be allowed to withdraw this consent at any time, and the process of doing so must not be harder than it was to opt in. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula... There is also FB specific: > In November 2023, Meta introduced a binary ‘Consent or Pay' advertising model. (…) > The Commission found that this model is not compliant with the DMA, as it did not give users the required specific choice to opt for a service that uses less of their personal data but is otherwise equivalent to the ‘personalised ads' service. Source: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1085 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...
- bluebarbet 9d ago
  Echoes of America's gay wedding cake case. In the US this would presumably be struck down as "compelled speech", and rightly so IMO. People refuse to pay for journalism and now publishers are prevented from allowing them to consent to pay with their personal data. They can't win, and yet we need journalism. The solution to this whole thing has been obvious since the start: Put the power where it belongs, with the user agent (browser), by making the Do Not Track signal legally enforceable. I'm very pro-Brussels but they've made an absolute hash of this whole thing. Cookie banners are ruining the web, which is the only open app ecosystem we have.
  - thih9 9d ago
    You praise both “Do Not Track being legally enforceable” and “consent to pay with personal data”. Note that they are mutually exclusive.
    - bluebarbet 9d ago
      First, I'm not "praising" anything other than choice on the part of publishers and users. If DNT is set to 1 then a publisher should be free to withhold their content. If everybody sets it to 1 then they might well choose to make some compromises. Or not. I don't care. Just make the banners go away.
      - thih9 9d ago
        > I don't care. Just make the banners go away. It’s easy, let them track you and don’t clear cookies. Be clear about your consent to tracking; then you don’t see cookie banners. Looks like there is even an extension for that: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/i-dont-care-about-cookies/fihnjjcciajhdojfnbdddfaoknhalnja https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/i-dont-care-about-c...
        bluebarbet 9d ago
        That's exactly what I do. Or rather I just mash whatever is the nearest button to smite the banner. "Refuse", "Accept", who cares? I'm blocking user-side anyway, as the web was designed for. This whole situation is completely dumb and unnecessary and makes me furious. The EU Commission should have known better. PS: Using a Chromium-based browser would be like begging to surrender what's left of the software freedom that I just described.
        thih9 9d ago
        Sounds like you’re not accepting the cookie banners in a meaningful way. Accept all cookies and never clear them - then you see no cookie banners.