At this point its getting ridiculous.
Their point 2 even states that even if you do pay them, they will still use cookies to track you and show personalised content
It’s the fucking Daily Mail, and should be completely avoided anyway.
Yeah, but sometimes you want to debunk it, or use it as a starting point for other research.
Not worth giving them the traffic.
Moral of the story: don’t read the Daily Heil. On top of mining your data like there’s no tomorrow, it’s a racist, homophobic, transphobic, fascist, pseudoscientific crock of absolute shit.
I noticed people are actually starting to realise the Daily Fail is an absolute shitrag, so they’re posting links from The fucking Telegraph instead 😂
Fuck me just get your tweed suit out and start shooting eastern Europeans grandad
It’s infuriating, isn’t it.
I always find the statement “we care about your privacy” to be a bit meaningless when they then say that they’ll share data with 100s of partners.
They didn’t even bother to write that lol.
And nothing of value was lost that day (why would you even want to read that rag?)
Though I agree in principle, fuck these scummy practices.
Isn’t it illegal under GDPR? It seems to be the exact same thing Facebook tried to do.
I think they’re all pushing their luck with it, trying to get away with it until any actual legal repercussions happen. I first saw this a while ago with a French newspaper - apparently the majority of newspapers there do it.
The Mail has less utility than toilet paper.
Don’t read this disgusting Murdoch rag. The Daily Heil should honestly just skip the cookies and data farming and simply shoot all of its readers.
Paid cookies opt out should be illegal
It probably is illegal in the EU, but I have no idea whether it would be illegal in the UK, too.
As of last I checked, people are trying it out and seeing if they can get away with it under the way GDPR is enforced. Hopefully that gets hammered out in court.
To my knowledge, the problem is the same in the EU, but there are legal initiatives by some NGOs (NOYB) that argue that having only these two options (pay for subscription or consent to personal information being sold) should be illegal, and that newspapers should be required to offer a third option (pay only the amount your information would be sold for, which is only a few cents, without the subscription).
they’re not only arguing it, they’re doing successfully so
Very happy to see that, thanks for the pointer!
True that would make sense
Its not even an option. They will still use cookies even if you pay. They’d just use it for their own use
ohh
Fuck the Daily Mail.
Browser reader’s mode and Archive Today: hold our beers.
Purchase a subscription to not get personalised ads? So even when you pay, you still get ads, they are just not personalised.
Its the same thing Facebook came up with
How do you know they don’t just sell your data anyways?
If they don’t already, they will. The insatiable desire for profit means that even if you paid them $1000 a month for their dogshit rag, they’d sell your data to make $1001 dollars.
Regulations are the only answer and they have to be both enforced and punished heavily enough to not make it worth risking.
or use firefox with ublock origin.
ublock origin blocks most of these trackers.
