• pulsewidth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 days ago

    It literally explained all of that in the article.

    I don’t understand what sucked about the website, found it perfectly usable myself. I did reject all cookies when it asked though, so maybe that helped.

      • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        You mean the legally-mandated GDPR cookie notice? That have existed for over a decade?

        Have you visited the internet before yesterday?

        • baines@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          lmao being told they are fucking you doesn’t make it good, and i wonder why they were legally forced to do so…

          i have all that shit blocked on pc so no that part of the internet doest interact with me outside of my phone and lemmy

        • trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          The cookie notice isn’t legally mandated. It is legally mandated to ask users before collecting Data you don’t actually need.

          • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            https://gdpr.eu/cookies/

            Cookies are considered ‘personal data’ under GDPR and ePrivacy directive of the EU, requiring informed user consent for any non-essential cookie - what is non-essential is highly debated, which is why essentially any significant website in the EU errs on the side of caution and uses a cookie popup.

            Name any EU news website that doesn’t use cookies in some form and have a cookie popup, I’ll consider my statement inaccurate.

            • trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              It’s actually quite easy. If cookies are needed for the technical function of a service, they are justified. I don’t see how a website serving news articles would need to preserve state via cookies in order to function properly.

              And no, doing “visitor statistics” is no valid reason nor an essential function.

              The websites that do so liberally dump their entire cookie jar on their users, and spam them with this annoyance, are doing so, because they have ulterior motives, like collecting and selling user data to advertisers.

            • baines@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              i don’t have an example but one of the the privacy blogs i watch had numerous examples of even eu websites that were in violation and there being no consequences (i think it was ben jordan)

              mostly it was around the pop up not properly following the requirement but in some cases there just wasn’t one

              now this was older so maybe they’ve since fixed themselves but this was after like a year or two of the requirement going into enactment so it wasnt an accident they were not in compliance