61–70 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> while their subscription terms continue to be asinine Agreed. The only official way to cancel a NYT subscription is to call them. Infuriating.
At least as far as NYT Digital goes ... I can cancel my subscription online with the click of a button.
And doesn't the clone army of iphones all essentially use Safari where the cookies still work?
But how will we pay the NYT to try to drag the US into wars while David Brooks lectures debt-loaded millennials about work ethic and family values unless we let them continue to exploit a bug in web browsers? Monopolist news orgs are losing readership/revenue because they're terrible and refuse to change, not because of Chrome. Meanwhile other, better forms of journalism are thriving.
> Meanwhile other, better forms of journalism are thriving. Such as?
But how will we pay the NYT to try to drag the US into wars while David Brooks lectures debt-loaded millennials about work ethic and family values unless we let them continue to exploit a bug in web browsers? Monopolist news orgs are losing readership/revenue because they're terrible and refuse to change, not because of Chrome. Meanwhile other, better forms of journalism are thriving.
> Meanwhile other, better forms of journalism are thriving. Such as?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least as far as NYT Digital goes ... I can cancel my subscription online with the click of a button.
And I had to call to Croatia to cancel mine. There are definitely dark patterns these guys using. Which was very surprising to see from true-journalism-northern-star
Just curious... does anyone know what the main workaround sites were using to detect incognito? And if there are other likely ones the sites will be able to fall back to?
Since the article doesn't bother explaining the loophole being patched: https://9to5google.com/2019/02/15/google-chrome-detect-incog...
> Without fail, the websites detected the intrusion attempt and prevented access to the content Using incognito mode in the browser to make it a bit harder to be tracked (without even blocking ads!) is "an intrusion attempt"? Excuse me? That's absurd language.
The author was deliberately trying to use incognito mode to view the paywalled content, so this is imho rightfully called an intrusion attempt. Of course, if you're just using incognito mode normally and happened to visit the same page, then it is not an intrusion attempt but just incognito browsing. The whole point is that news websites can't distinguish between the two.