Makes me wonder how quickly someone will either create an addin or Mozilla will make it superobvious how they are doing their tracking.
Check out the uBO Scope extension by the ever amazing gorhill.
Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
241–250 of 314 posts
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#242What infuriates me about WaPo is that even though I pay for it, their site is pretty much unusable without an ad blocker. The text jumps around as I scroll to make room for dynamically loaded ads. And then there are the bottom-feeding Outbrain (or whatever vendor they use) ads at the bottom of the article. It's a mess.
Washington Post have a secret, hidden "Premium EU Ad-Free" subscription that removes all the ads. You have to go specifically here and click on the third option - but NOT when you have a subscription already (you need to cancel it first) https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/ Despite "EU" and "GDPR" in the name, it works outside of EU too
It's also cheaper than the cheapest subscription offered in the US.
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the payment model is broken. I'm not going to subscribe to a site that I only want to read a single article. We need a way to pay a few cents to read an article, ad and tracker free.
The problem is that per-article adds a lot of friction. If I buy a newspaper, I don't have to buy it by article or section. Nobody wants to think about "this is 3 cents to read the article linked on HN" and they also don't want a surprise $80 bill at the end of a month. However, the newspaper style "every article from today" or even "monthly access" still focuses around the thought of "you've picked one, or a very na…
That's what I like about Blendle [0]: you can request a refund for articles you don't like, so it makes the transaction almost frictionless. No need to think long and hard about the decision, just request a refund if the article is not up to your expectations.
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are stupid laws, but privacy protection is not one of them. People narrowly voted to bankrupt their economy, that's for sure.
Privacy protection laws are a good thing. But “cookie consent” pop-ups are stupid and pointless. Pop-ups do not improve privacy, and they make the web worse.
But that's a bad implementation on the part of the site, under GDPR you should have the option to opt-out as well.
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are stupid laws, but privacy protection is not one of them. People narrowly voted to bankrupt their economy, that's for sure.
Privacy protection laws are a good thing. But “cookie consent” pop-ups are stupid and pointless. Pop-ups do not improve privacy, and they make the web worse.
> “cookie consent” pop-ups are stupid and pointless. Pop-ups do not improve privacy, and they make the web worse.
GDPR is not about cookies or consent popups. Even the previous directive from 2011, known as the "cookie law", wasn't about cookies or consent popups.
Both laws are about tracking (GDPR also covers personal data in a broader sense).
Developers are completely free to use cookies, or any other technology, in order to implement their sites. GDPR and the "cookie law" don't care about that.
What they do care about is the purpose of what's been implemented. If it's something that the user wanted, by virtue of visiting the site, e.g. the ecommerce features of an online shop, then that's fine. Use cookies for your shopping carts, use local storage for your word processor's undo, use Flash supercookies for your game's high scores, whatever.
If the functionality is not something that the user wanted, i.e. they could achieve what they want (buying stuff, editing documents, playing a game) without that functionality, then that functionality is forbidden to use personal data (like tracking the user's activity) unless explicit opt-in consent is given. Again, it doesn't matter how that functionality is implemented: 1x1 images, iframes, local storage, browser fingerprinting, or cookies.
If you find cookie consent popups annoying, don't blame GDPR, the EU, etc. Blame the site, since either:
- It doesn't need to ask, since its functionality is wanted by the user.
- The developers wanted to do shady stuff so much, that they were willing to ruin their site's UX.
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how things happened. First they came with the blink tag. Then they added animated GIFs everywhere. They came with the pop-up. Then they put the pop-up under the main window. Ad-blockers' first usage was to make the Web readable. Then years later privacy concerns took over.
At this point, ads are just one of many problems. Newsletter popups, cookie consent (10x worse since GDPR), auto-playing video, in-browser crypto mining..? At this point, basic self-respect demands I simply disable JavaScript. It's incredible how much faster the web is without it, and how much smoother, and how much less cluttered.
Don't blame the tool (JS), blame the people who use it to cripple your web experience.
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, this is what really makes me mad. You can't argue that alternatives to tracking don't exist when no one is actually trying the alternatives. You can't choose between paying and getting tracked; it's get tracked regardless and hear them nag you to pay them for the privilege.
> You can't choose between paying and getting tracked […] Well, you can of course pay and use an ad-blocker. I have a subscription to a Dutch newspaper (on actual paper even), and use their site as well, but not without protection. The ads in the paper newspaper are usually fine. Rarely do they affront or annoy; and they are tailored to the general profile of the newspaper's readership. But whenever I use a clean bro…
>The ads in the paper newspaper are usually fine. Rarely do they affront or annoy; and they are tailored to the general profile of the newspaper's readership.
Now I feel stupid. For all the doom and gloom about the impossibility about paying to not getting tracked and how Chinese and American spy agencies and Megacorps know everything about your online behavior, I never thought about simply returning to consumption of analog content as a reaction. Well, it's more expensive and worse for the environment, but I guess if you really value privacy that's bearable
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
> by falsely convincing them that an ad view on a screen is worth 1,000 times less than an ad view on printed paper What makes you believe that this hypothetical comparison is false? The problem with traditional advertising is that everyone sees it, regardless of their interest in the subject matter or lack thereof. As an advertiser you have to pay to show your ad to a lot of people who aren't likely to be interested…
The problem with traditional advertising is that everyone sees it, regardless of their interest in the subject matter or lack thereof. This is false. The internet ad tech companies didn't invent marketing demographics. Advertisers who want to sell things to old people advertise on TV shows and in magazines that appeal to old people. Advertisers who want to sell Product X advertise in places where people who want to b…
> But there's a reason that an ad in print has more gravitas and impact on the reader than an online ad. Digital ads are ephemeral, and are forgotten as quickly as they are seen. With the exception of writing an ad in the sand on a wave-washed beach, every single other advertising method has more impact than online ads.
This seems to be an argument for "an ad view on a screen is worth 1,000 times less than an ad view on printed paper", which you seem to be arguiing against in parent comments...
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the gp’s point was an analogy, not actually what is being used.
Better analogy: Please disable your data & use our "free wifi" to better triangulate your movements, download the contents of your contacts, emails, texts, browser history and while we're at it, drop a tracking app/cookie/x on your phone, etc....
Yup, I agree there are other, more accurate representations possible. I just wanted to clarify what seemed to be conveyed by op, as there appeared be a misunderstanding based on the reply. Thanks for the additional example.
Re: Tell HN: Now Washington Post is asking to turn off Firefox's tracking protection
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tend to agree with you. But do you have an alternative model ready? And if not, how much of the news media are you willing to let die off completely before you would relent?
Let it burn. I have zealously blocked all ads since the first adblockers became available (even before blocklists), I've used Privoxy and PiHole and various other tools to block as much advertising as I possibly can. I go out of my way to avoid prominent logos on clothing, although I do make an exception for band shirts for bands I personally like. I show up ~10 minutes "late" for movies, in order to avoid most of th…
Yup, PiHole for the win! :)