1000004515

Not sure how long this has been a thing but I was surprised to see that you cannot view the content without either agreeing to all or paying to reject.

  • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Lmao even if you pay, you still see ads, they just won’t track you. What an insane monetization scheme

    • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Actually they still track you, they just don’t share the information with advertisers. This is hte “pay or ok” model of blackmailing users to accept cookies and tracking. More or less what Facebook did last year, but Facebook charged a price tag that was higher than what Netflix costs! In the EU, this is not what was intended, and is currently being redefined

      https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2024/edpb-consent-or-pay-models-should-offer-real-choice_en

      • Don_alForno@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        Deutsch
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Sadly, newspapers are not considered “platforms”. A platform is a site that publishes user generated content, so lemmy or facebook. And not all platforms are large platforms too.

        So while this is a good first step, it doesn’t cover all online services.

      • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Absolutely wild that they’re still allowed to call this “consent”

        If we imagine the idea of sexual consent being given in the same circumstances, it sounds a lot like a fucking crime.

        “Either you consent to having sex with me right now or you pay me a subscription fee in order to not consent. If you do that, I’ll still fuck you, but I’ll use protection”

        • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I like this analogy; it’s provocative and it made me think about the issue for longer than I would have otherwise.

          However, after some thought, I don’t think it aligns perfectly since the user can simply choose not to read the article, so there’s an option where they don’t get fucked.

          In the same vein, I think we could make a better analogy to sexting. You meet someone, seem to hit it off, and when the texts and pictures get a little spicy, they hit you with a, “you can pay me now and I will keep all of this in my private spank-bank, otherwise I’m going to share our entire relationship with a group chat I’m in with 1200+ people”

          I think this is a bit stronger because it hits on a few notes where the hook-up analogy falls short: sharing of sensitive information, extortion in exchange for gratification, and the potential for an ongoing relationship.

          Idk, what do you think?

          • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I see where you’re coming from, but my understanding is that the tracking cookies are already on your machine when the banner is presented, so they’ve already put in the proverbial tip.

          • Don_alForno@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            Deutsch
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            the user can simply choose not to read the article, so there’s an option where they don’t get fucked.

            We are rapidly nearing a point where you can’t read online news from any major (ergo “widely considered somewhat credible”) source without one of those schemes. So I’d argue that the alternative is to just not get access to online news, and that may be considered too much pressure to still consider consent as voluntary.