I mean it’s right there… there is a reject and an accept. The issue is this site doesn’t let you read the article unless you do another thing… but you can reject the cookies very easily.
The worst is “Accept all” and “Customise choices” which brings up 100+ slide checks which are all pre-populated.
No there isn’t. There’s a “reject all and subscribe” which is not the same thing as a pure “reject all.” The law doesn’t allow them to impose extra conditions (subscribing) like that.
The lawyers will say the “Reject” option successfully rejected the cookies on that first click, but if you still want to read the the article you have to pay.
I can see the coercion issue, where 99% of people are coerced into agreement, but that has yet to be defined as illegal.
In the meantime I’m going to keep hitting the “reader view” button before the cookie pop up appears.
Is it better if the articles were just behind a paywall? So no one could access them without paying? Sadly that is the alternative for journalistic content online.
I just use “reader view” before the pop up appears. Not exactly a fan of the situation in either case, just pointing out the law is flawed and so is the implementation, but the most wrong thing is the legislation.
I mean it’s right there… there is a reject and an accept. The issue is this site doesn’t let you read the article unless you do another thing… but you can reject the cookies very easily.
The worst is “Accept all” and “Customise choices” which brings up 100+ slide checks which are all pre-populated.
No there isn’t. There’s a “reject all and subscribe” which is not the same thing as a pure “reject all.” The law doesn’t allow them to impose extra conditions (subscribing) like that.
The lawyers will say the “Reject” option successfully rejected the cookies on that first click, but if you still want to read the the article you have to pay.
I can see the coercion issue, where 99% of people are coerced into agreement, but that has yet to be defined as illegal.
In the meantime I’m going to keep hitting the “reader view” button before the cookie pop up appears.
It’s not a single click though. It is way more friction to reject then accept. So it def goes against spirit of EU rules.
Is it better if the articles were just behind a paywall? So no one could access them without paying? Sadly that is the alternative for journalistic content online.
Can you take the boot out of your mouth so we can understand what you’re trying to say
I just use “reader view” before the pop up appears. Not exactly a fan of the situation in either case, just pointing out the law is flawed and so is the implementation, but the most wrong thing is the legislation.
No need for ad hominem attacks here