This has to be against some kind of law right?
If the news is that important you’ll find it elsewhere without this bs
Have you heard of adblocking?
You’re not missing much.
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
Moral of the story? Don’t read the Express. To quote Dave Gorman, it’s a crock of shit.
Saw this on Sunday. I think it fits here…
ublock origin has an annoyance list you have to manually enable, but it works wonders to get rid of those.
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.
but the offer has consumed resurces
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.
Is this related to the new laws in Europe? I remember seeing something about Facebook introducing a paid tier
Besides the point but are you able to get around it with internet archive?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
Archive.is is your friend
It’s the express, you’re better off never reading a word they print
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.
To avoid these things I use uBlock Origin and Consent-O-Matic
Never heard of consent-o-matic. I’m gonna have to check it out
Now that’s the real PrivacyPlus™
And it’s free.
The Express? There’s definitely a not-reading-it option
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
