This has to be against some kind of law right?

  • Otter
    link
    fedilink
    English
    159 minutes ago

    Is this related to the new laws in Europe? I remember seeing something about Facebook introducing a paid tier

  • Hellfire103
    link
    fedilink
    English
    124 minutes ago

    Moral of the story? Don’t read the Express. To quote Dave Gorman, it’s a crock of shit.

  • @Echo5
    link
    12 hours ago

    Besides the point but are you able to get around it with internet archive?

  • davel [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    173 hours ago

    Don’t worry, once they have your credit card number they’ll track you even more. At best you’ll get a £‎2.35 cheque from a class action lawsuit in seven years, assuming they ever even get caught.

  • @ZeDoTelhado
    link
    83 hours ago

    What a fantastic website not to visit

    • @GrammarPoliceOP
      link
      22 hours ago

      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!

  • Dave.
    link
    fedilink
    8
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • @GrammarPoliceOP
      link
      33 hours ago

      Wasn’t it illegal to not let a user reject a cookie? In the EU at least