Was trying to read a news story and… What fresh shitfuckery is this? Why do I now have to pay money to a company just for the privilege of not being spied upon and not getting your cookies that I don’t want or need? How is this even legal?

RE: “Why are you even reading that shitrag?” – I clicked on a link someone posted in another sublemmit, didn’t realise it was the Sun till after. I do not read the Sun on the regular, chill. My point stands regardless that this is extremely shitty and should probably not be allowed.

  • JaggedRobotPubes
    link
    English
    135 hours ago

    No you don’t.

    The site is trash so you leave.

  • @WoahWoah
    link
    English
    24
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    The best part of this is you would need to give them your personal information to pay them, and you’d need to accept the necessary cookies for them to know you’ve paid when you access the website. 🤣🤣🤣

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      you’d need to accept the necessary cookies for them to know you’ve paid when you access the website

      Cookies that are required for and only used for operational purposes (like knowing if the user is logged in) don’t require consent.

  • @ikidd
    link
    English
    -22 hours ago

    Where’s the option where they send me their home address so i can mail them a baggie of my chili lunch liquishit?

  • @Sam_Bass
    link
    English
    128 hours ago

    you get ads whether pay or not. keep your money

  • bitwolf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    56 hours ago

    It asks to play DRM content but plays videos anyway.

    Their devs must be so sick of their business dept.

  • Daemon Silverstein
    link
    fedilink
    English
    98 hours ago

    A naive question of mine, but isn’t using a browser/extensions that silently/transparently blocks cookies (such as Brave, but not just it) enough to fearlessly click “Accept All Cookies”, since ultimately they would be pointless for the purpose of tracking (due to the browser’s own cookie blocking capabilities)?

  • @joe_archer
    link
    English
    5012 hours ago

    I’m pretty sure this is illegal under GDPR. They’re just seeing how long they can get away with it for, before they have to apologise and get no punishment.

    • KSP Atlas
      link
      fedilink
      English
      158 minutes ago

      This appears to be a US specific website, where they could get away with the geoblocking technique to bypass gdpr

      • @joe_archer
        link
        English
        155 minutes ago

        It’s The Sun. A British newspaper.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1411 hours ago

      Indeed. There must be no downside to clicking no. Consent must be freely given.

      Although I’d argue almost nobody complies with the spirit of the law. Popping up a consent form every time you visit unless you accidentally click accept and then never asking you again doesn’t feel like consent was truly given.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          34 hours ago

          Cookies required for the website to work (like that one) are totally fine and, in fact, they don’t even have to ask you about them - if they’re not used for tracking. So no, asking each time is definitely avoidable.

    • fancy_coffeetable
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1711 hours ago

      I’m seeing this kind of thing on an ever increasing number of sites in Germany. It’s especially galling on sites I already pay a subscription fee for! Isn’t that enough? Now I’m supposed to pay another monthly subscription to avoid tracking cookies?

      I’ve already cancelled one news website due to this, letting them know why (they’re small enough that I know they read it, since it was part of a conversation). Fat lot of good it’ll do, but …

  • TheTechnician27
    link
    English
    15714 hours ago

    OP, The Sun is one of the trashiest rags on the face of this Earth. Your best option regardless of their ad practices was always to stay well away from them.

    • KSP Atlas
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 hour ago

      They have a reputation in the UK for a reason, I don’t even want to start thinking what the us version is like

    • @ilikecoffeeOP
      link
      English
      5314 hours ago

      Oh I know, I clicked a link here on lemmy and was taken to that site. I never read it otherwise, but now Im definitely not reading it…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        you can block websites if you want if you’re on voyager. It’ll filter out posts which link to whatever websites you list.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      210 hours ago

      And they’re not even the worst in the UK.

      I forget which one it was that decried the Brass Eye paedophile special as sick, while on the page directly opposite it was an article telling you how big 15 year old Charlotte Church’s tits were getting along with a photo.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        33 hours ago

        Daily Mail?

        Brass Eye was incredible for shining a light on media and political hysteria. Their episode on drugs was hilarious and tragic.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    47 hours ago

    It looks like the big buttons are “accept all” or “pay for no ads”, but the cookiescan still be tuned with the link under the “accept all”?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1110 hours ago

    Why are you trying to read the Sun? Brain cancer is a terrible disease. Don’t do this to your family.

    • @Jarix
      link
      English
      109 hours ago

      Not the f’n point my dude

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        08 hours ago

        This is happening because the site is shitty so don’t use the shitty site. Sounds pretty f’n on-point to me.

        • @Jarix
          link
          English
          47 hours ago

          I agree with the sentiment about the shittyness of the site.

          But this was about a new bullshit cookie bullshit.

          If you can understand the persons problem here then maybe you need to do some work about that

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    79 hours ago

    “To change all cookie settings click_here” <-- this is the bit you want. It’s free to reject all the cookies yourself.

  • @FrowingFostek
    link
    English
    69 hours ago

    I don’t think I’ve ever had 63 tabs open on my browser. Well done.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13 hours ago

      I have so many open my browser doesn’t give me a count anymore and just shows me a surprised face.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      I had 1600 open in Firefox on my computer (and maybe 200 on my phone) until I decided enough is enough and closed all of them. These days I close every tab at the end of the day.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Really? I regularly have well over 100, constant ♾️ Don’t get me wrong, I wish I didn’t.

      • @FrowingFostek
        link
        English
        68 hours ago

        Mad lad, hats off to you. If I have 6 or more open I start to feel uncomfortable.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1211 hours ago

    Solution: don’t read that shitrag. It was always a waste of paper, now it is a waste of bandwidth as well.